Senior Cohousing - Sherry Cummings, Nancy P. Kropf

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN AGING
Sherry Cummings
Nancy P. Kropf
Senior Cohousing
A New Way
Forward for Active
Older Adults
123
SpringerBriefs in Aging
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10048
Sherry Cummings Nancy P. Kropf
•
Senior Cohousing
A New Way Forward for Active Older Adults
123
Sherry Cummings Nancy P. Kropf
College of Social Work School of Social Work, Perimeter College
University of Tennessee Georgia State University
Knoxville, TN, USA Atlanta, GA, USA
ISSN 2211-3231 ISSN 2211-324X (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Aging
ISBN 978-3-030-25361-5 ISBN 978-3-030-25362-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
During our travels to twelve senior cohousing
communities, the two authors spoke with 76
of residents. These women and men opened
their homes, shared their experiences, and
made this project informative …… and fun!
We dedicate this book to those individuals as

a small way to thank them for their kindness,
and generosity of spirit.
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Senior Cohousing . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 The Purpose of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
References . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Senior Cohousing—History and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Cohousing in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.1 Cosmic Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.2 Self Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.3 Social/Personal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 Communities Visited—Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Cohousing Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Alcequia Jardin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Elderberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4 Elder Family Fellowship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 Elderspirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6 Glacier Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.7 Mountain View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8 Phoenix Commons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.9 Sand River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.10 Sarah’s Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.11 Silver Sage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.12 Walnut Commons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.13 Wolf Creek Lodge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.14 Governance and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.15 Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
vii
viii Contents
3.16 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.17 Member Recruitment and Vetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 Why Senior Cohousing? . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1 Pushes: The Desire to Leave a Current Residence . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Pulls: The Move to a SCC . ................. . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3 Why Senior Cohousing? . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . 33
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . 34
5 Staying Active and Engaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1 Activity Within Senior Cohousing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2 Engagement Outside the Senior Cohousing Community . . . . . . . 40
5.3 Public-Private Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6 Benefits and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.1 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2 Social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.3 Practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.4 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.5 Interpersonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.6 Amount of Time Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.7 Self-governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7 Looking to the Future—Aging in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.1 Hopes for Aging Within Senior Cohousing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.2 Support in Senior Cohousing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7.3 Limits of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.4 Envisioning the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
8 Advice from Senior Cohousers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.1 Adequate Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.2 Self-reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
8.3 Be Courageous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
9 Living and Learning—The Senior Cohousing Experience . . . . . . . . 71
9.1 The Desire for Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.2 Growth and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
9.3 Thoughts for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
9.4 Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Appendix A: Questions for Members of Senior Cohousing
Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Abbreviations
EFF Elder Family Fellowship

NOBO North Boulder
SCCs Senior cohousing communities
ix
Chapter 1
Introduction
…. we’re on the leading edge of the baby boomers so we don’t do anything like anybody
has ever done before and that includes aging. You know, we’ve seen our parents in nursing
homes and that’s not where we want to go…. (Tammy)
Our society is currently experiencing demographic shifts due to the aging of the
baby boom generation, and Tammy (above) captures well the magnitude of change
brought about by the baby boomers. This cohort, born after World War II during
the years of 1946–64, has transformed social institutions and trends at every point
in the life course. As members of this cohort ourselves, both of the authors have
faced the changes firsthand—and many of you who are reading this book have gone
through these experiences as well. We overflowed school classrooms as our sheer
number went beyond the capacity of space and resources. We embraced new trends
and modified social values and norms in many areas including choices, customs, and
social roles. Now as we grow older, we are transforming options for later life by our
preferences and decisions.
We see these trends in many ways which create new and emerging journeys into
later life. One is the way that we care for ourselves. For example, greater attention
is being paid to staying healthy and fit into later life such as described in the book
Fitness After Fifty: Eat Well, Move Well, Be Well (Rosenbloom & Murray, 2018).
Take the experience of running a marathon, for example. Previously, this event was
dominated by younger runners who were viewed as having the endurance to complete
the 26.2 miles. However, there has been a shift in runners’ profiles as greater numbers
of master runners compete in this sport. In fact, now over 50% of men and 40% of
women are over the age of 40, and often runners are competing into their 60s or 70s
with substantial benefits to physical health (McMahan, 2015).
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

S. Cummings and N. P. Kropf, Senior Cohousing, SpringerBriefs in Aging,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_1
2 1 Introduction
Even with the onset of chronic conditions, people are also looking more holisti-
cally at their health and well-being. In older adults with diabetes, for example, one
report indicated that 25% had used complimentary alternative medicine treatments
within the past year (Rhee, Westberg, & Harris, 2018). These included interventions
such as acupuncture, massage, herbs and supplements, and mind-body programs
(e.g., yoga and tai-chi). Spiritual changes are also happening. The baby boom gen-
eration embraces a more diverse array of spiritual traditions, beyond the mainstream
religions, which includes meditation, connecting with nature, and other practices.
Another area that is changing is the decision about where and how to live during
later years. Many older adults state a preference for living in their own homes; how-
ever, this decision can have unintended consequences such as worrying about how to
manage if a health crisis is experienced, or feeling unsafe in a home or neighborhood.
Living situations that provide people with companionship, ways to stay engaged with
others, as well as provide a purpose and community have emerged. As baby boomers
consider later life, many are exploring options that channel relationship and support.
In this way, the baby boom generation is once again transforming options for later
life—just as we have done during early times in our lives!
The desire for connection is an important factor in exploring more communal
living arrangements. Isolation is particularly acute in later adulthood when there are
fewer options for increasing engagement and social ties. Limited mobility, sensory
declines, and other age-related changes may prevent older adults from establishing
meaningful and supportive relationships. Additionally, later life is without some of
the settings that provide a context for establishing friendships such as employment
and school settings. These combined factors contribute to loneliness, depression,
and disengagement. Consider a story in the New York Times (Onishi, 2017) about
isolation in older adults in Japan, which is one of the top countries for long life
expectancies. Mega-apartment complexes house scores of older adults, each who
live alone within her or his small unit. Without meaningful interaction within these
buildings, individuals stay cocooned within their own units- never knowing their
neighbors. A shocking tale brought this situation to national attention when a 69 year
old man was found dead in his apartment, being deceased for three years prior to
being discovered. This is an extreme example, yet it does speak to both a concern
shared by many about potential isolation and the desire to be involved in engaged
and caring relationships in later life
1.1 Senior Cohousing
In response to desiring connection and engagement, senior cohousing communities

(SCCs) have been developed to bring together individuals around shared values1 .
While cohousing was initially designed as multigenerational communities, a move-
1 For
more information about Intentional Communities, visit the Fellowship for Intentional Com-
munity for references and resources: https://www.ic.org/.
1.1 Senior Cohousing 3
Fig. 1.1 Elder Family Fellowship
ment has formed to establish communities specifically for those in later life (Fig. 1.1).
A more detailed history of cohousing is provided in Chap. 2.
Senior cohousing communities offer living arrangements which provide space and
attention to the experience of growing older, including both the rewarding aspects
4 1 Introduction
and the challenges. In multigenerational cohousing, these issue are diluted by many
important ones that are part of family life such as raising children and labor force
issues. One of the women interviewed as part of this project summed up her decision
to move to a SCC instead of a multigenerational community:
I had good friends that lived there [multigenerational cohousing community], and I observed
the interaction of the community, intergenerational, and it seemed that there were issues
involving young children, and different things that older people would not necessarily be
concerned about. That’s why I then thought that I would concentrate on a senior community,
because we wouldn’t have some of those issues.
In addition to having space for issues of aging, SCCs promote a sense of fac-
ing the aging process collectively. In these communities, there is a perception that
everyone is sharing the aging process together which brings security and a sense of
caring (Fig. 1.2). Noreen summed up her impression of living in an SCC with this
view, “I think that there’s a sense of more ease with it knowing that we’re not gonna
be alone. Knowing that there are people around who care. So, I think for me, that
makes me feel just more confident about the [aging] process. That’s the way I wanna
live and the way I wanna die.”
Like cohousing communities in general, SCCs are founded upon shared values
and assumptions that provide the basis for residents. The six principles of cohousing
are:
1. Participatory Process—development of a community is started with a vision
statement. Future residents lead the development process and are co-collaborators
in overall design of the community.
2. Neighborhood Design—the lay out and configuration of the space within the
community is created to stress connection and sense of community
3. Common Facilities—a common building on the property includes kitchen space
for shared meals, along with other spaces, such as laundry and library, based upon
the vision and shared principles
4. Resident Management—decisions about division of labor are made by the com-
munity residents themselves. While residents have responsibility for their own
units, decisions about governing policies and work related to common spaces
(common building, shared meals, gardens, patios) are determined by the resi-
dents
5. Non-hierarchical Structure and Decision-making—most cohousing commu-
nities use a consensus decision making model. There is no person or group that
has greater power or decision making over others
6. No Shared Community Economy—the community does not exist to create an
income stream for the residents.
1.1 Senior Cohousing 5
Fig. 1.2 Socializing in the common area

6 1 Introduction
1.2 The Purpose of the Book
This book was written to specifically explore older adults’ experience of living in a
senior cohousing community. The idea came to the authors through both professional
and personal perspectives. Professionally, both of us are social workers and geron-
tologists and we have studied numerous issues of later life including mental health,
caregiving, and social networks. As teachers, we have also worked with students
to learn effective practice with the older population—and this includes eradicating
some of the myths of growing older. One common myth is that all older adults end
up in nursing homes. In exploring SCCs, we hope to bring additional understanding
to social work, gerontology and other students who seek careers in health and human
service about how these communities enhance options for adults as they age.
Along with this professional journey, however, there are personal reasons for our
interest. As baby boomers, we are exploring options for our own aging years. What
kind of place would we like to live? Where do we see ourselves aging? These are
important questions and are informed by caregiving experiences that we have had
with our own parents. We both have had a parent who lived in a long-term care setting
and concluded that this would not be a place that we would choose to move. As true
academics, we decided to address this issue by exploring other living options—and
spent our summer researching, visiting, and interviewing residents of SCCs across
the country.
During our visits, we were interested in several questions. How did the residents
make the important decision to move into this type of residential setting? What activi-
ties do they participate in—both within the SCC and in the surrounding environment?
As they look into the future, how do they see their aging within this type of com-
munity? What are the biggest challenges, and what has this experience taught them
about themselves? We addressed the same set of questions across all of the commu-
nities to compare similar and unique issues that arose. (A full set of the questions
can be found in Appendix A).
We selected twelve SCCs to visit. We used a sampling approach called maximum
variation purposive sampling to identify 12 SCCs that would represent the full vari-
ety of senior cohousing characteristics. The purposive sampling was based on the
variation of SCCS along the following dimensions: (1) Mission; (2) Population; (3)
Structure; and (4) Geographic location. The communities identified were distributed
across California, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington
DC. In some communities, we interviewed residents separately and in other places
within group formats—whatever made the residents most comfortable. All in all, we
ended up interviewing a total of 76 residents. In a few places, we were invited to
spend the night and participate in some of the activities such as meals, happy hour,
vespers and soaking in a hot tub. In all cases, the residents with whom we met were
generous with their time, and honest with their answers.
This book tells the story of life in senior cohousing communities. We employed an
existential-phenomenological qualitative research method. The ultimate goal in using
this approach is to gain knowledge of the phenomena being studied by achieving a
1.2 The Purpose of the Book 7
deeper understanding of the lived experience of the individual or group of individuals

involved (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008). Informed consent was obtained for each
person prior to being interviewed. Participants were told that no real names would
be used (all names appearing in this book are aliases) and that no specific remarks
would be attributed to those living in particular communities. In this way, we hoped
to preserve the anonymity of those interviewed and encourage the most open and
honest answers to the questions posed. Data for this study consisted of the transcripts
made from the audio-recorded focus group and individual interviews. The transcripts
were then read individually by each of the authors and analyzed to discern common
themes that emerged in response to the questions asked. Final themes were discussed
and agreed on by the researchers. What is presented in this book, therefore, is not an
account of individual senior cohousing communities. Rather, it is the story of common
experiences of those who live in SCCs regardless of the geographic area in which
the community is located, its size, or years in existence. Our experience highlights
some of the common characteristics found across the settings which include a desire
to be in relation to others, the offering and receiving of assistance and support, and
a common structure that provides for ongoing maintenance of communal space. As
you read the stories of the residents and the SCCs, you will find powerful descriptions
of resilience, connection, and caring. One of the men interviewed was in the process
of moving to a particular community, and summed up the benefits as he made this
decision:
… being here, knowing that there is an intact support system is important. I live with people
who are very supportive and all that stuff, but it’s in a typical American suburb, so you may
not even know… I don’t even know some of the neighbors. Here, you can’t not know people.
Here, you want to know about what other people are doing, and maybe you don’t sometimes,
but everybody’s got different ideas about how to relate and what they’re doing, and you hear
about this and you hear about that, and that’s always fun.
References
Colloingridge, D. S., & Gantt, E. (2008). The quality of qualitative research. American Journal of
Medical Quality, 23(5), 389–395.
McMahan, I. (2015, April 22). Running into old age: A growing number of seniors are completing
marathons and triathlons, shedding new light on how exercise affects the elderly body. The
Atlantic.
Onishi, N. (November 30, 2017). A generation in Japan faces a lonely death. New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/world/asia/japan-lonely-deaths-the-end.
html.
Rhee, T. G., Westberg, S. M., & Harris, I. M. (2018). Use of complementary and alternative medicine
in older adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 41(6), e95–e96.
Rosenbloom, C., & Murray, B. (2018). Food and fitness after fifty: Eat well, move well, be well.
Chicago, IL: Academic of Nutrition and Dietetics, Eat Right Press.
Chapter 2
Senior Cohousing—History and Theory
We decided on cohousing; we decided that what we really wanted was to be good to the
earth; we wanted spirituality; we wanted mutual support…And I think community’s worth
it. It’s not easy, but it’s worth it. …And I think it’s the human condition - what we want is
some belonging, and support, and acceptance. (Stephanie)
2.1 History
The first modern cohousing community was developed in Denmark just outside of
Copenhagen in 1972. Twenty-seven families who desired a greater sense of commu-
nity and collaboration than found in typical neighborhoods of the time came together
to develop a fresh approach to housing (McCamant & Durrett, 1988). With the guid-
ing principles of community and cooperation in mind, these families developed the
physical characteristics and the governing structure for their new community that
have now become hallmarks of the modern cohousing movement. Architectural fea-
tures such as community kitchens, communal play areas for children, and common
gardens and courtyards served to heighten residents’ natural interactions with one
another. Shared responsibility for the functioning and upkeep of their community
further fostered interpersonal engagement. What resulted was the formation of a
more close-knit “neighborhood” without families having to forfeit living in indi-
vidual homes (Bamford, 2005). In a manner, it was an attempt to re-gain what was
thought to have been lost through modernization—a hearkening back to village living
where community residents worked together to maintain their way of life.
Senior cohousing, then, was an adaptation of the modern cohousing movement
applied to older adults. The first senior cohousing community, called Midgården,
was established in Denmark in 1987 (Durrett, 2009). This community was pioneered
by two women, Tove Duvå and Lissy Lund Hansen, who championed independent
housing for older adults (Durrett, 2009). As their model, they used the already estab-

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_2
10 2 Senior Cohousing—History and Theory
lished intergenerational cohousing communities in Scandinavia. The community

opened with 9 single older women as the initial residents.
The idea of cohousing for older adults caught on quickly in Denmark; but, the
reality of working with the government to sponsor such senor cohousing, learning
the needed skills to work with architects and developers, and creating a beginning
community that was able to effectively confront and solve problems was daunting to
many.
Then, in 1995 Henry Nielsen created a comprehensive model to help guide
cohousing-interested seniors in the often confusing and challenging process of cre-
ating a cohousing community. Nielsen gained his expertise in the field of older adult
cohousing through his work with the Danish nonprofit Quality of Living in Focus.
His model addressed issues related to design, community size, aging-in-place and
member participation. He stressed that the participatory process is essential to the
creation of a strong and vibrant cohousing community, as it involves the members
in the construction and design of their future community. Nielsen’s model describes
a step by step process to follow, consisting of 2 phases and three study groups, in
order to develop a cohousing community. Phase one is called the “feasibility phase,”
and is identified with discerning whether or not a senior cohousing community is
possible in a given area, finding a site, and exploring how the community will be
financed. Phase two is called the “information phase.” This phase involves locating
other seniors interested in participating in a senior cohousing community, along with
honing-in more on how development will take place. Following the “information
phase” is a series of three “study groups” that cover specific topics: aging success-
fully, participatory design, and policy (Durrett, 2009). Furthermore, Nielsen’s model
identified a number of key players, in addition to future residents, who are essential to
the developmental process. These include a third party advisor and project manager
who work to coordinate between all the people involved; local officials who help
with zoning, public services availability, etc.; a developer who works with the resi-
dents and oversees the project’s development and financial process; and an architect
who designs the community in consultation with the members. While the process of
developing a cohousing community can be an arduous one, Nielsen’s model helped
pave the way for many by demystifying the complex activity of senior cohousing
development. As a result, the number of senior cohousing communities in Denmark
and beyond began to grow. By 2009 there were 2,800 senior cohousing units in Swe-
den and 2,100 in the Netherlands (Glass, 2009), while by 2015 there were 250 senior
cohousing communities in Denmark alone (Penderson, 2015).
2.2 Cohousing in the U.S.
Moving to the American context, McCamant and Durrett (1994) are credited with
coining the term cohousing and introducing the concept to Americans in the 1970s
(Glass, 2009). The two were architecture students on a year abroad at the University
of Copenhagen. During his daily commute to the university, Charles Durrett came
2.2 Cohousing in the U.S. 11
across a newly developed cohousing community. Intrigued, by the lively social inter-
action on display, Durrett and McCamant decided to learn more about cohousing.
They spent 14 months in the early 1980s visiting close to 200 cohousing communities,
studying many in detail and even living in a few to gain a deeper understanding of the
structure, principles and workings of cohousing. After returning to the U.S., they self-
published a book on the topic in 1988 and three years later built the first cohousing
community in the U.S. fashioned after the Denmark cohousing model (Verde, 2018).
Since the early 1990s, the number of cohousing communities has grown throughout
the U.S. Although it can be very difficult to determine the exact number of cohousing
communities, according to the Cohousing Association of the United States (2019),
there are currently 165 cohousing developments in 36 states. Of course, these rep-
resent only those communities that have chosen to join this cohousing association.
The vast majority of these cohousing communities are intergenerational.
Communes versus cohousing. In the U.S., the term cohousing is often confused
with “commune”. Many of the older adults who we interviewed reported that their
friends and family members replied, “What! You’ve joined a commune?!, when they
told them that they had purchased a house/unit in a senior cohousing community. In
many peoples’ minds vivid images of the 1960s and 1970s “hippie” communes still
endure. It is true that communes continue to exist in the U.S. and across the globe.
While some hippie-type of communes do remain, the term commune is now used to
designate a community in which “most everything is shared” and which may consist
of shared housing, co-householding and/or co-living (multiple individuals sharing
a house) (Fellowship for Intentional Community, 2019). Communes and cohousing
are different in several important ways. In communes there is often: (1) a common
purse; (2) a focus on the group rather than on the nuclear family; and (3) 100%
income sharing. In cohousing some land and space (e.g. the common house) are co-
owned. However, cohousing community residents own their own homes and can sell
them on the open market. In addition, while community members may have close
relationships, there is no desire nor expectation for the group to become the primary
focus. Rather, it is understood that the main emotional relationships remain within
the family/unit. Lastly, in cohousing there is not a common enterprise nor income
sharing. Cohousing, therefore, is more of a tightknit village that shares responsibility
for common areas and promotes strong community while maintaining the concepts
of individual income, property, and households.
Senior cohousing in the U.S.. Given the quick spread of cohousing across the ocean
to America, it would be reasonable to assume that senior cohousing caught on rather
quickly. However, this was not the case. Cohousing, focused on those 55 years and
older, did not begin in the U.S. until the early 2000s (Glass, 2013). The publication
of The Senior Cohousing Handbook: A Community Approach to Independent Living
by Charles Durrett (2005) helped spur the growth of senior cohousing. In addition to
introducing the idea of senior cohousing and describing aspects of the architecture,
Durrett clearly described the process of creating a senior cohousing community.
According to Durrett (2005, 2009) Study Group I is especially important. It is during
this 10-week process that potential members look at, and hopefully come to accept,
Fig. 2.1 Blueprints for Silver Sage Senior cohousing
their own aging process, examine what it means to them to “age-in-place” and decide
how they would like to do this. This type of sharing also enables potential members
to learn essential listening skills, get to know one another better and build beginning
community bonds. Approximately 40% of those who go through this process decide
to forge on and participate in the creation of a senior cohousing community (Durrett,
2009) (Figs. 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3).
Between 2005 and 2007 three separate senior cohousing communities opened in
California, Virginia, and Colorado, all which were visited by the authors. The first
cohousing community in the U.S. was Glacier Circle in Davis, California. Much like
the first elderly cohousing development in Scandinavia, Glacier Circle was conceived
of by a single person, Ellen Coppock, who had reservations about moving into a
traditional senior housing residence. Concerns about loneliness and isolation were
the impetuses that drove Ellen Coppock and her friends, many of whom had known
one another since their children were in pre-school, to begin considering options other
than the local Life Plan Community. In their own way, they informally engaged in the
process of Study Group I. At the end of this process, they decided to move forward and
develop a senior cohousing community. They visited an intergenerational cohousing
community in California and decided to base their community on this model. Glacier
Circle was privately developed by a core group of about eight people who were
committed to creating a community of older adults dedicated to living in relationship
as they aged. The group first came together in 2002. Although they initially faced
many setbacks, once they found a plot of land where they could build and an architect
who was willing to work with them as they wanted, the project moved forward, and
after several years of hard work, the community officially opened in 2005.
2.2 Cohousing in the U.S. 13
Fig. 2.2 Working toward a Senior cohousing mission statement
The second senior cohousing community to develop was ElderSpirit in rural,

Virginia. After looking for land, a group of interested older individuals formed a
corporation to purchase the property and received funding from the Research Retire-
ment Fund for predevelopment activities. This group consulted with Charles Durrett
and hired an architect. Members of this emerging community served in the role of
program manager, who oversaw the physical development and worked with govern-
ment housing agencies, and in the role of community coordinator, who publicized
and recruited members for the developing community. ElderSpirit opened in 2006.
The third senior cohousing community to open was SilverSage in Boulder, Colorado.
This group was initially made up of aging members of an existing intergenerational
cohousing community, Neyland Cohousing, who were exploring a cohousing option
for themselves that was more focused on their needs and interests as older adults.
They were soon joined by others and found land across the street from an already
existing intergenerational cohousing community, Wild Sage. They worked with a
non-profit agency and a developer to create the first mixed income senior cohous-
ing community. This group also hired McMamant and Durrett as their architects to
design, with community members input, the physical structure and space. This was
also the first group that officially went through the process of Study Group I. They
opened their doors in 2007.
Fig. 2.3 Blueprints come to life in common spaces
Since 2007, the number of senior cohousing communities has slowly but steadily
grown. There are now seventeen such communities listed in the directory of the
Cohousing Association of the United States (2019), and 28 are currently in forma-
tion or under construction. Similar to the original three projects, these new com-
munities are spread in states throughout the country, range in size, are situated in
diverse geographic settings, and possess mission statements with a variety of foci
from mutual support and green living to spirituality and community engagement.
Likewise, new groups are now employing a variety of developers and architects,
including senior cohousing specialists, local professionals and community members
themselves, and using a creative array of financial mechanisms to develop and build
their communities.
2.3 Theory
The Gerotranscendence Theory of Aging helped shape the framework we used to

conduct our study of the lived experience of senior cohousing residents. In particular,
this theory was used to guide the development of our structured interview questions
and to organize our data analysis and data interpretation, that is, the way we thought
2.3 Theory 15
about and developed themes from what the residents told us about their lives in their
cohousing communities. Gerotranscendence is a developmental theory of aging that
posits the continued possibility of personal growth as one ages. It suggests that growth
can be seen on three different levels—cosmic, self, social/personal. So, as one grows
older, it is possible to “transcend” or move beyond previous understandings and gain
new perspectives on fundamental existential issues, the meaning and importance of
relationships, and definitions of self (Tornstam, 2005, 2011).
2.3.1 Cosmic Level
• Increased feeling of oneness with the universe

• Increased connection to both past and future generations
• Increased ability to reflect on and incorporate earlier aspects of life
• Increased acceptance of the mystery of life; accepting that not all things can be
understood or explained from a rational point of view
• Increased ability to see the universal in individual objects
• Decreased fear of death.
2.3.2 Self Level
• Increased self-acceptance
• Increased altruism
• Increased integration of different pieces (both good and bad) of one’s life
• Increased sense of wholeness and coherence
• Decreased self-centeredness
• Decreased obsession with the body.
2.3.3 Social/Personal
• Increased desire for solitude and meditation

• Increased acceptance of other ways of being and doing things
• Decreased interest in superficial relationships
• Decreased need to conform to social roles and norms
• Decreased attachment to material possessions
• Decreased judgmentalism.
The authors went into this project believing that growth can occur at all ages, and
saw in the theory of gerotranscendence a framework for looking at different aspects
of possible growth as one ages. What is presented in this book should not be viewed as
an effort to support or critique the theory of gerotranscendence. Rather, it is an attempt

to explore whether the experiences described to us by senior cohousers would reflect
any of the themes noted above and, if so, would the participants attribute some of their
growth experiences to life within cohousing rather than to aging itself? In other words,
might the experience of living in senior cohousing help foster gerotranscendence?
In the next chapter we turn to a description of the communities we visited, and an
explanation of the shared governance and communal management processes used.
These set the scene for the remaining chapters and further exploration of the lived
experiences of community members and the impact of these experiences on their
growth and development.
References
Bamford, G. (2005). Cohousing for older people: Housing innovation in the Netherlands and Den-
mark. Australian Journal on Ageing, 24(1), 44–46.
Cohousing Association of the United States (2019). https://www.cohousing.org/. Accessed 1 Febru-
ary 2019.
Durrett, C. (2005). Senior cohousing handbook: A community approach to independent living (1st
ed.). Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press.
Durrett, C. (2009). Senior cohousing handbook: A community approach to independent living (2nd
ed.). Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Fellowship for Intentional Community. https://www.ic.org/. Accessed 17 February 2019.
Glass, A. P. (2009). Aging in a community of mutual support: The emergence of an elder intentional
cohousing community in the United States. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 23, 283–303.
Glass, A. P. (2013). A conceptual model for aging better together intentionally. Jounal of Aging
Studies, 27, 428–442.
McMamant, K., & Durrett, C. (1988). Cohousingg: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves.
Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press.
McMamant, K. & Durrett, C. (1994). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves
(2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Pendersen, M. (2015). Senior cohousing communities in Denmark. Journal of Housing for the
Elderly, 29, 126–145.
Tornstam, L. (2005). Gerotranscendence: A development theory of positive aging. New York:
Springer Publishing.
Tornstam, L. (2011). Maturing into gerotranscendence. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
43(2), 166–180.
Verde, T. (January 20, 2018). There’s Community and Consensus. But It’s No Commune. New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/20/business/cohousing-communities.html. Accessed
10 February 2019.
Chapter 3
Communities Visited—Overview
We made a commitment to be in community. That both has to do with running the place and
all of that entails but also in terms of being there for each other…. (Bob)
In the U.S., there are 17 senior cohousing communities that are currently up and
running. The first was established in 2005 and the last came onboard in 2018. To
achieve a good representative understanding of these communities, we visited 12
communities that ranged in size, geographic location, number of residents, types of
structure (homes or condo units) and urban/rural/suburban setting.
An integral aspect of senior cohousing is the active participation of the older
residents in the design and development of the community. All but one of the com-
munities that we visited was developed by an original group of older residents who
were strongly committed to the cohousing principles noted in chapter one. Most
frequently, these original members reached out to a developer and/or architect early
in the process to help guide them thought the design development and construction
phases. One team in particular, Charles Durrett and Kate McMamant, who are lead-
ers in the senior cohousing movement, provided consultation to several of the senior
cohousing communities. Others recruited local architects and contractors while a
member of one smaller community, who had a background in real estate and con-
struction, oversaw most of the process herself.
3.1 Cohousing Communities
Following is a brief description of each of the communities we visited and an overview

the governance, decision-making and recruitment processes they employed.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_3
18 3 Communities Visited—Overview
Fig. 3.1 Acequia Jardin
3.2 Alcequia Jardin
Established in 2013, Alcequia Jardin is a small community set on 1.1 acres located
just a few miles away from Old Town Albuquerque and next to a food co-op. Nestled
off of a main road, the community consists of the 5 duplexes (10 homes), a small
community room and a guest-suite used for short-term visits by family and guests.
The community prides itself on being environmentally and socially responsible.
Homes, which are energy efficient and range in size from 800 to 1200 sq feet, are
gathered around a community garden and courtyard maintained by the members.
While members have organized a weekly book club, occasionally share dinners and
engage in other activities that take place on-site, they are also very active in the larger
community (Fig. 3.1).
3.3 Elderberry
Elderberry is located in a rural area about 30 min north of Durham, North Carolina.
Started in 2011, Elderberry is adjacent to a multi-generational cohousing community
named Potluck Farms. With strong principles rooted in ecology and sustainability,
the residential units are energy efficient and a solar farm is being added. There are
multiple organic gardens and a chicken coop for eggs. The 18 home units have a
limit of 1200 sq feet and are either duplexes or quadplexes. There is a common
house with a kitchen, library, and meditation area. While the members of Elderberry
have organized several activities and events for themselves, they also interact with
those living in Potluck Farms.
3.4 Elder Family Fellowship 19
3.4 Elder Family Fellowship
Elder Family Fellowship (EFF) is located in the rural community of Whittier, North
Carolina. As a senior cohousing community, it is the smallest of the communities
visited with just two current residents. The goal is to recruit additional members to
become part of the “family” which is the preferred term over “residents”. EFF is part
of a larger community, Union Acres, that was started in 1989. One of the founders
is now living in EFF, which is physically sited within the Union Acres property.
Whittier is in a beautiful area located in the western part of the state in the Smokey
Mountains. EFF consists of a single building with multiple floors, separate units, a
large kitchen and a great deal of privacy. All other homes in Union Acres are spread
over about 90 acres. There is a communal building where residents of both EFF and
Union Acres gather for meetings and social events.
3.5 Elderspirit
Elderspirit is located in Abingdon, Virginia which is a small town in the southwest

part of the state. Started in 2006, the community has a strong spiritual foundation and
includes Christians, Jews, and Buddhists. In addition to single dwellings, there are
rooms in the communal building that are rented to make living there more affordable
for those in lower income brackets. About 25 people currently live in Elderspirit.
The property is integrated into the small town, and it is easy to walk to the downtown
area which has shops, a community theater, and restaurants. In addition, the property
borders on the Virginia Creeper Trail, a 34 rail-to-trail system for walking, biking
and recreational uses.
3.6 Glacier Circle
Glacier Circle, begun in 2005, was the first senior co-housing community estab-
lished in the U.S. Organized by a group of friends with common roots in the Uni-
tarian Church, this community is located in suburban Davis, California. The eight
townhouses, 1,000–1,400 sq feet in size, and a spacious community house encir-
cle a mature and well-maintained garden consisting of colorful flowers and trees.
While the front of the community faces a neighborhood consisting of single-family
dwellings, the back gate opens onto a greenway and reserve. Because current mem-
bers have aged-in-place and are older (current average age is 90 years), they have
chosen to jointly hire outside help to handle the community’s finances, maintain the
garden, and to cook communal dinners 4–5 times per week.
3.7 Mountain View
This cohousing community is located in the city of Mountain View, CA, which lies in
the heart of Silicon Valley and is situated on the southern end of the San Francisco Bay
Area. Mountain View is a small high-end city with a walkable downtown. The senior
cohousing community at Mountain View began in 2014. One structure houses the 19
condo homes, which extend from 1350 to 2090 sq feet and are situated along three
floors. Front doors and back walls contain windows that allow in ample sunlight and
foster easy socialization. A spacious community area consisting of a large kitchen,
meeting space and a mail area is positioned in the center of the first floor. Residents
maintain a large communal garden that includes a wide variety of flowers, trees and
vegetables. Guests and family members are welcomed to stay at the “farmhouse”, a
separate adjacent building that houses two well-appointed bedrooms, a kitchen and
a living area.
3.8 Phoenix Commons
Phoenix Commons is located in a busy urban area of Oakland, California known

as Jingletown. This 41-unit condo complex, begun in 2016, is the largest senior
cohousing community we visited. It is also the most diverse community explored in
terms of backgrounds, race, sexual orientation and work status. The units in this airy
multiple-floor building face one another and are separated by open air walkways.
This construction grants privacy while encouraging residents to mingle in outdoor
areas. A spacious common area, located on the first floor, contains a large kitchen,
an exercise room, a library and gathering/television area where residents meet to
visit and cheer on their favorite teams. Phoenix Commons is positioned along the
Oakland waterfront and at the base of a walkable bridge to Alameda Island.
3.9 Sand River
Situated a few miles from downtown Santa Fe, Sand River is a small cohousing
community positioned on 3.5 acres of land. The community, which is celebrating
its 10th anniversary this year, consists of 14 adobe style duplexes with 28 units and
a common house that contains a large kitchen, a small library and an office area.
The duplexes and community house are joined by gravel walkways while natural
southwestern-style plantings and grasses line many of the buildings. The cohousing
community rests about a quarter mile off of a main road that runs through Santa Fe. A
large gym, commercial establishments and restaurants are a quick drive away. Sand
River prides itself on being a LEED community with sustainable design features that
save resources and promote renewable, clean energy.
3.10 Sarah’s Circle 21
3.10 Sarah’s Circle
Sarah’s Circle is a non-profit agency and apartment community located in the heart of
the Adams-Morgan neighborhood of Washington D.C. Begun in 1983, Sarah’s Circle
was established to provide affordable housing and a vibrant community for very low-
income older adults. Although not a traditional senior cohousing community in that
it was not designed and developed by the older residents themselves, it is included in
this book as an example of older adult community living that is accessible for those
with very limited financial resources. The three-story building houses 36 studio, one-
bedroom and 2-bedroom apartments and is anchored by a large community center in
which residents gather to socialize and participate in activities such as weekly creative
writing and watercolor classes. One of the residents functions as the manager for the
building while other residents serve on the Sarah’s Circle board of directors. Sarah’s
Circle is supported by HUD-funding and donations. Residents contribute one-third
of their income toward their monthly rent (Fig. 3.2).
Fig. 3.2 Sarah’s Circle

3.11 Silver Sage
Silver Sage is situated in North Boulder (NOBO), an artsy part of Boulder, Colorado.
The community is part of a high-density living environment; for example, Wild
Sage, a multigenerational cohousing unit, is located across the street. The physical
layout of Silver Sage is extremely attractive with a communal garden containing
flowering plants, vegetables and herbs. There are sixteen units in total, with a subset
of “affordables” that are set below market value. This arrangement was created
to secure a tax benefit from Boulder when Silver Sage was built. To bring down
communal property costs, Silver Sage rents out some space to local artists. The
Silver Sage residents share other space including a workshop with powertools, an
art room, exercise room and a meditation room. The community is located about 3
miles from downtown where the University of Colorado, Boulder is located. Down
the street is an accessible public transit bus system that many residents use to travel
downtown. Around NOBO are restaurants, paved running/walking trail, biking trails.
As one resident said, “everyone here has a Subaru and a bike.”
3.12 Walnut Commons
Walnut Commons was originally designed as an inter-generational cohousing com-

munity, and while members actively encourage residence by younger adults, no
common space is allocated on property for children. As a result, residents mainly
fall in the 55 year + age group. This community, which is located in the heart of
the extremely popular city of Santa Cruz, was opened in 2014 and consists of 19
units situated in a three-floor condominium building. In addition to the condo units,
Walnut Commons houses a common area containing a kitchen and two co-joined
meeting spaces. The common area opens onto an outside patio graced by flowers and
plants. Walnut Commons encourages environmentally sustainable living. Because of
its location almost everything that anyone could want—a public library, museums,
restaurants and shops, a movie theater, grocery stores and the beach—are within easy
walking distance.
3.13 Wolf Creek Lodge
Wolf Creek Lodge, which opened its doors in 2009, is situated in Grass Valley,
California, a small historic gold rush town that is now home to numerous lively
entertainment events, art galleries, restaurants, and a theater. It is located in the
scenic western foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range. Wolf Creek Lodge is
an airy and light-filled three-story building that contains 30 individual condo homes,
4.000 sq feet of shared indoor common space, a large outdoor patio where meals
3.13 Wolf Creek Lodge 23
Fig. 3.3 Wolf Creek Lodge
are often shared and a spacious well-maintained garden. The common area, located
on the first floor provides space for a large kitchen, two guest bedrooms, laundry
facilities and both large and small meeting areas. Most of the units have patios and
all open onto a shared walkway. Grocery stores, restaurants, the post office, a hiking
trail and many other amenities are within easy walking distance. Residents engage
in many shared activities within the lodge itself but are, also, very active in the town
and in area political activities (Fig. 3.3).
3.14 Governance and Management
In addition to the cohousing principles of neighborhood design and common facilities

described above, each senior intentional community that we visited actively engaged
in resident management. This means that all the residents share in both the decision-
making and running of the community.
3.15 Decision-Making
All communities, whether large or small, typically hold monthly residents’ meetings
in which proposals concerning the building, grounds and community policies are
discussed and votes are taken. One of the most distinguishing characteristics of
cohousing is the use of consensus decision-making. This means that all residents
are encouraged to actively participate in discussions and to vote on proposals. How
cohousing groups implement consensus decision-making does vary, however, and is
the topic of much discussion among senior and intergenerational communities alike.
The decision-making process in the larger senior cohousing groups we visited
tended to be more structured. In some, prior to bringing a topic to larger monthly
meetings, members are encouraged to form exploratory groups that develop a draft
proposal, receive feedback from key, or all, members of the community and make
suggested revisions to the proposal before bringing it forward for discussion at a
monthly meeting. Alternately, other communities have executive committees that
view all proposals and request additional information/clarification, as needed, prior
to the discussion of the proposal at the large group meeting. Two of the communities
we visited also had an additional process in which, proposals that gained community
interest but failed to secure an affirmative vote, were referred back to a group of
interested residents for continued discussion, research and, perhaps, re-introduction
at a future meeting. In smaller communities, proposals are often introduced with less
formality during the monthly group meeting and then discussed until all residents
agree to accept, further investigate or drop the idea altogether.
Regardless of the process, decisions are typically made by consensus, although
what is meant by “consensus” varies by community. To some, this means that 100%
of the residents must agree in order for a decision to be implemented. Therefore, one
person could theoretically hold up or put an end to an idea. One community that did
hold to this definition of consensus also had a proviso requiring that all “no” votes
to a proposal be based on consideration of the community’s best interest rather than
on personal preferences. A few of the larger communities also followed a structured
process to help order the large group discussions and votes. Under this structure, a
vote is taken after a proposal is introduced and discussed. Residents then hold up one
of three differently colored cards to indicate their votes of agree, disagree or abstain.
Proposals failing to achieve consensus are then either discarded or tabled for further
exploration and discussion. As stated above, some cohousing groups, both large and
small, require proposals to have 100% support while others believe that consensus
has been achieved when 80% of the residents agree.
3.16 Management
Member participation forms the heart of cohousing communities. In most cases,

all the work required to maintain the buildings and grounds, and to operate the
community is accomplished by the members themselves. When new individuals buy
3.16 Management 25
a property, they realize that they are also joining a community and must share in these
responsibilities. The work of the community is mainly completed through teams or
committees. Rules such as participating on two committees or working 12 hours per
month are common. Residents join teams reflective of their skills and interests and the
community’s needs. Common teams include gardening, maintenance, membership,
finance, and dinning.
The amount of work required depends upon the size of the community as well
as the skills and interests of those involved. Some communities, for example, have
extensive landscaping and flourishing gardens filled with flowers, trees and veg-
etables due to the members’ love of horticulture. Other communities have lovely,
yet more modest, gardens that reflect their members’ interest and time. Likewise,
joint dinners may be more extravagant affairs or potlucks depending upon the dinner
team’s, and community members’, interests. One smaller cohousing group decided
to forgo preparing community dinners all together and instead agreed to jointly hire a
chef to cook once a week and to engage in occasional “pop-up” meals. Residents who
prefer more solidary participation may also engage in activities such as newsletter
development and website maintenance or serve as the community treasurer.
Cohousing communities have diverse ways of accounting for members’ participa-
tion. One of the most structured methods we encountered required that all members
report their monthly activities to a volunteer who kept an account of everyone’s hours
and notified members if they were falling behind. On the other end of the spectrum,
there were several communities that followed the “honor” system and allowed mem-
bers to keep their own record of the hours they contributed, all the while knowing
that certain members would consistently fall short. Several communities discussed
the possibility of initiating a “play or pay” system in which members who either
chose or were not able to fulfill their participatory commitment would pay higher
monthly fees. At the time of our visits, however, none of the groups we interviewed
had adopted this strategy.
3.17 Member Recruitment and Vetting
New members are recruited during several periods throughout the life of a cohousing
community. The first is when a new cohousing community is beginning to form.
Those initiating the formation are often a handful of individuals who are searching
for like-minded people to join them in the creation of a vision for the community and
in the actual development of the community itself. Recruitment of interested members
at this nascent stage may involve word of mouth, website notices and/or newspaper
and radio announcements. Founding members often spend countless hours spread
over several years developing architectural plans, searching for property, securing
funding, overseeing construction and developing initial bylaws and policies before
the community opens its doors. Members involved at this stage often comment on
both the tremendous energy required and the depth of relationships formed while
involved in this process.
The recruitment of owners to purchase homes after construction has begun often
takes place using the same methods as described above. Once all units have been
sold and occupied, new units become available when current members relocate or
die. Recruitment of new members takes many forms depending upon the particular
community. Larger senior co-housing communities often have active websites that
post information concerning available homes. Most have a contact person or mem-
bership coordinator listed on their website who responds to requests for information.
Regardless of the current availability of a unit, interested individuals are often invited
to sign-up for a community’s monthly newsletters or to schedule a visit. The goal is to
educate those making inquiries about the realities of senior cohousing and about the
nature of the specific community, in particular. Communities with limited members
often do not have the resources to sponsor an on-going newsletter or an active website
that lists available properties. In such cases, owners may look to sell their homes on
their own or via a real estate agent. Because members own their property, they, or
their heirs, may sell their home to whomever they wish. This reality has, at times,
resulted in a new owner who was not aware of, or interested in, cohousing mistakenly
purchasing a home within a cohousing complex. Although a rare event, membership
teams do all in their power to avoid this potentiality by educating prospective buyers
about the mission and nature of their communities. One group we visited retains the
right of first refusal so that, in cases where a potential buyer is not well-suited for the
community, the group may purchase the property and sell it on their own to someone
who is a better fit with the mission and workings of the group. Another commu-
nity actively recruits new owners through Unitarian churches when a home becomes
available. In the end, all cohousing communities seek to recruit new members who
not only understand cohousing principles but who also aspire to live, and actively
participate, in community.
Chapter 4
Why Senior Cohousing?
It seemed like a wonderful idea to grow old together… especially to grow old together with
friends. (Lily)
What draws people to move in later life? What rationale do they have for leaving
behind homes and neighborhoods where they have often lived for decades to set
out on a new adventure? An initial step in making this decision is to sort through
the all the residential situations that are available, learn their features and make a
determination of what you are truly seeking at this point in your life.
Living options for older adults who are active and independent include many
alternatives. Large master-planned retirement communities abound. Some, such as
The Villages in Florida or Sun City in Arizona, are home to as many as 115,000
adults 55 years of age and over. As advertised on its website (2018), The Villages is
a “Fun and affordable active adult community where everything you could possibly
want, need, or dream of doing in your retirement years is just a golf cart ride away.”.
The layouts and features of these communities are pre-planned by developers, and
on-site services and activities are provided by a management company. Another
living option is a senior retirement residence. These are much smaller affairs and are
often more akin to typical apartment buildings. Retirement residences range from
low-income rentals to luxury condos and may include amenities such as recreational
activities, hairdresser services and transportation. These are developed and managed
by a variety of groups, such as for-profits, non-profit, governmental, and religious
organizations.
With the advent of health issues, there is often an accompanying need to have
additional supports in place. Life Plan Communities (previously known as Continu-
ing Care Retirement Communities) are also another option. Life Plan Communities
include apartments or houses for independent living as well as Assisted Living and
Skilled Nursing Home care for those who require more assistance as they age. Res-
idents often pay a sizeable entry fee for admittance into a Life Plan Community
when they are able to live independently. However, if their cognitive and/or physical
functioning deteriorate over time they are able to move into on-site assisted living

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_4
28 4 Why Senior Cohousing?
or skill nursing units. All residents pay monthly fees to cover meal, recreational,
management and other services.
With many independent living options available to older adults, why do some
actively choose senior cohousing communities? What aspects of senior cohousing
lead individuals to this type of living arrangement? From our interviews, both pushes
and pulls drive people to first investigate and then actively choose to live in senior
co-housing communities. Pushes are those factors that create dissatisfaction with a
current living situation. On the other hand, pulls are those reasons that induce people
to select a SCC. Both types were discussed by the people that we interviewed.
4.1 Pushes: The Desire to Leave a Current Residence
Aging-in-place. As far as pushes, many individuals first came to the understanding

that their current living situation was not optimal for aging-in-place by watching
the aging process of parents and friends. Respondents reported having witnessed
the creeping isolation that often invades someone’s life due to growing functional
impairment or increased frailty. Having problems driving in the dark due to poor
night vision or losing a driver’s license all together, experiencing difficulties nego-
tiating the front steps, and having problems travelling due to fatigue can lead older
individuals to become isolated within the very homes that had once provided them
great comfort. One woman stated “I watched my mom as she stopped driving …And
when she stopped driving, everything tanked pretty quickly. Emotionally, physically
and mentally. So, at that point, I looked at where I was living and thought, “What
happens if I stop driving…and I thought, that is just not sustainable, I don’t want to be
isolated in my own home as I get older…” (Mary). A resident of another community
pointed to a similar experience she had “I have two friends who have steps, …She
broke her leg and they can’t maneuver around their place. They had to put stair lifts
….and then she’s isolated when he goes to work. It’s horrible”. (Samantha). Betty
told a comparable story, “My wife and I were taking care of her mother and she was
at a local facility, but we would take her out and take her to our [home] periodically,
and we realized that at one point she couldn’t go up the stairs by herself. We had to
help her on both sides sometimes and if the young man hadn’t been next door, we
would have had trouble getting her down the stairs. And this whole experience, for
four years, of taking care of her mother and being in charge… made us realize that
we needed a plan and so we started looking at co-housing” (Fig. 4.1).
4.1 Pushes: The Desire to Leave a Current Residence 29
Fig. 4.1 Navigating steps can be difficult and dangerous
Community disengagement. Another factor that led others to the decision to leave
behind their current homes and seek out a living situation that promised greater
engagement and interaction was the realization that they no longer knew their neigh-
bors or felt engaged within their communities. When individuals are employed, they
are often busy and socially occupied at work. As a result, they cherish their homes
as places of refuge. However, after retirement some look around and realize they
don’t know those who live next door to them anymore. Long-time neighbors may
move away, communities can change and, at times, areas of refuge may begin to feel
more claustrophobic and isolating. Regardless of type of locale—rural, suburban or
urban—this is a common reason that residents report moving to a SCC. One indi-
vidual who lived in a major city reported, “…and I had been living in the apartment.
I was there for 10 years, and I didn’t know my neighbors.” (Rita). One woman who
had lived in the same neighborhood for decades noted that her neighbors typically
commuted an hour each way to work, picked up their children from school, came
home, went inside their houses and didn’t come out again. On the weekends those
living nearby were busy taking their children to activities or doing errands. “And I …
we only knew one set of neighbors and we just knew them just to say, “Hi! How are
you?” We never really did anything with them. I mean, we could have dropped dead
inside the house and nobody would have known…” (Paige). Another suburbanite
stated “A lot of times in the suburbs we didn’t, well we recognized people but we
didn’t really know people and didn’t necessarily socialize” (Dottie). Those living in
rural areas often face even greater challenges, “We lived on the top of a hill. We had
eight acres. We literally had never met our neighbors” (Kate).
4.2 Pulls: The Move to a SCC
Concepts of community. One of the major lures to life in senor cohousing is the
sense of a close-knit community, a place where one is known, knows others and
can easily interact and engage with those who share similar values and interests.
During our interviews several residents referred to senior co-housing communities
as “The new old-fashioned neighborhood”. As one senior cohouser who grew up in
Philadelphia put it, “And I really wanted to have a community in which there was
a feeling of family, which I had as a child growing up…. We knew everyone in the
block, you know? We played together, we spent time together…” (Joy). A woman
who had been raised in small town America shared a similar sentiment, “So I grew
up in a tiny little town, I knew everybody in the town… There were 3000 people in
the town. And people I went to preschool with I graduated from high school with.
So, I had this little tight community” (Fig. 4.2).
While not all members of senior cohousing grew up in close knit neighborhoods,
many did have previous experience with some type of community living which
they had enjoyed and found rewarding—from being in the Peace Corps, to living
in a college dorm or with a group of friends after graduation, being a member of
a spiritual community or from a culture that emphasizes close personal relations,
“…in the Pilipino culture everyone is expected to be social and share. So growing
up I saw my mother inviting friends over, filling the house…” (Chris).
Others, however, has no such experiences but still longed for a place to live where
they could connect deeply and easily with others. “So, I really loved the idea of
being together, doing things together, and we could be as happy as we could be, you
know…I really had no misgivings at all. My husband was a not very social person.
Fig. 4.2 Vision statement—Elder Family Fellowship/Union Acres

4.2 Pulls: The Move to a SCC 31
To me it was an extra reason to like the idea of being with other people and doing
things together.” (Lily).
Many individuals also stated that while they had no previous experience living in
community, they were looking and hoping for a living situation that would allow them
to develop relationships like the ones they had experienced in their own families or
with very close friends. “And I really wanted to have a community in which there was
a feeling of family, which I had as a child growing up.” (Ava). When considering
cohousing, most residents seemed to be realistic, however. As with many family
situations, they realized that there would be some individuals with whom they would
connect more easily and others who would be more challenging for them. “There’s
some people that you’re going to have problems with, it happens in any place, and
other people who just open their heart right up to you, and it’s extra family in your
heart.” (Caroline). Andie also expressed similar realistic expectations “I knew with
41 units, I knew that there were going to be people that were going to be my best
friends. I mean, just odds are, and I knew that there was going to be people that were
not going to be my best friends.”
Common interests and values. Those we interviewed reported they had anticipated
that others who lived in senior cohousing would share their interests and values. This
assumption makes sense, as SCCs are typically founded upon a set of principles
that are primary to cohousing communities (see Chap. 1). For this reason, their
expectations of developing close friendships and being able to maintain healthy
relationships, even with those with whom they weren’t close, seemed well-founded.
“But I was just taken with the fact that this is an intentional community, that people
have made the decision that they had wanted to come here and share their lives with
one another, and also by the values, on the assumption that everyone who decided to
come was sort of subscribing to one degree or another, to those values…” (Lucy). In
addition to sharing similar values, those living in senior cohousing tend to be more
liberal in their politics and cultural orientations. On average, senior cohousers are
well educated, well-traveled and open to diversity. “I have always found community
to be tremendously important…So that was the main thing for me. I was attracted to
the idea of diversity, diversity of race, income, sexual orientation, any of that kind
of diversity you can think of. That is one of the values here, and it’s not always easy
to attain, but I found that tremendously important.” (Maggie). Dixie also reported
“I think we believed politically they were… people we would be compatible with.
[This town] is very liberal in its freedom to be whatever you want to be, religious,
even politically. There’s a lot of tolerance for that.”
Another value highlighted in the mission statements of many SCCs is that of
respect for the environment, and residents often cited this as a major draw for them.
They spoke of the desire to own less and downsize, to live in ecologically friendly
structures and to care for the earth. When speaking of what drew him and his wife to
their particular intown co-housing community, one resident reported “Well, they’re
active. They’re progressive. They’re concerned. There are several very strong envi-
ronmentalists. And these were the things that we ourselves are active in….” (Chip).
Kate, a member of a rural community, also noted “This community just felt really
Fig. 4.3 Preparing for a shared meal
good. We liked the people. We liked the concept of trying to live a greener life, trying
to live in community, all those kinds of things, and staying active while you age, was
really appealing to us …”.
Most units in senior cohousing are smaller than the homes in which residents
had previously lived and many individuals and couples saw divesting themselves of
unneeded possessions as a benefit. “So, the idea of living in a community, having
a smaller footprint, was something else important” (Marge) and “So, we thought
this was a good idea to downsize, which we did by 75%” (Jim), were the types of
sentiments we often heard. It should be noted that living in a smaller spaces is made
more practical in co-housing communities due to the sharing of common areas and
equipment. The common house provides an “extra living room” where folks can
gather to watch TV or just relax (Fig. 4.3). As Dottie, stated “But the sharing, having
4.2 Pulls: The Move to a SCC 33
people around to do things with, not everybody owning a washing machine, things
like that…being more ecologically sound, so sharing equipment and having people
around, is the upside of cohousing.”
4.3 Why Senior Cohousing?
When talking to others about the book that we were writing on senior cohousing
many people we spoke to were very excited about the idea of cohousing. Living
with others, being able to make and connect with friends easily and having a sense
of community—all these features are very attractive to many people. But …. the
one question that continued to pop up was, “Why senior cohousing?” Many people
stated, “I don’t think I’d want to live with a bunch of old people”. Interestingly, when
we asked residents if they had had any concerns about moving into a SCC, they
often shared the same misgivings about living in a community with “old people”.
However, after exploring and visiting both intergenerational and senior cohousing
communities, those we interviewed found that their views had changed.
While many often found multi-generation communities to be attractive, they also
came to the realization that by their very nature such communities must first focus
on the welfare of the children. As one resident explained, “…we realized that as
much as we like kids and everything, we found out that the intergenerational were
not intentionally, but de facto, they had to be controlled by the kids, the needs of
the children. So, this just seem to be a better fit for us…” (Dorothy), and “… I have
heard that in those types of communities, it’s all about the kids, all their meetings and
everything… I have grandchildren, they’re all grown now, but that just wasn’t what
we really wanted.” (Dixie). We also heard from one man who had moved from a
multi-generational to a senior cohousing community, “But there go the connections.
In the multi-generational, everybody’s working. There are people who love it, but let
me tell you that I was alone so much of the time in a multi-generational community.”
(Pete).
When comparing senior communities with multi-generational, many individu-
als also quickly perceived the benefits of communities that purposefully included
universal-design, which would accommodate their needs should they require more
assistance as they aged. Accessible entrances with no steps, an elevator for those liv-
ing on higher floors, widely spaced door-ways should a wheelchair ever be needed - all
promised a greater ability to age-in-place. But, physical space, while very important,
is not the only element that enables individuals to age well. Practical and emotional
support are also needed. One resident explained, “…a developer frequently said,
“80% of what older people need as they get older, they can provide for one another
rather than assisted living places.” Residents realized that by living with others at
their same stage of life, they would be more easily able to talk about their challenges,
plans and wishes for aging. They desired a place where they could be open with
others and provide mutual support. Stephanie explained that the provision of mutual
support is, in fact, one of the most important benefits she found in senior cohousing.
“When I’m at home, here at [SCC] I feel young and active. And when I go out,
I get treated like I’m old. And so, there’s some vitality here, for seniors, that the
culture doesn’t accept yet…That’s like one thing about being with seniors. And I
think the commonality gives a lot of strength. There’s a lot of advantages just being
with people that are like you.”
Reference
Thevillages.com. (November, 17, 2018). Retrieved from https://www.thevillages.com/.

Chapter 5
Staying Active and Engaged
My social life has greatly improved by living here. Because you just get to see your friends
all the time. (Andie)
My life has taken almost a leap, in sense, joi de vivre, or whatever that is. I don’t speak
French, but it really, really has. (Jenny)
An aspect of senior cohousing life that draws many people to this type of living
arrangement is the opportunity to engage with others. As discussed in earlier chap-
ters, several individuals commented that they knew few people in their previous
neighborhoods which led to a sense of disconnection. Residents in senior cohousing
desire something different in their lives. As Marie stated, “we’re kind of pilgrims on
a journey here, redefining what it means to get older in a community.” Having people
close by promotes a sense of involvement and fosters spontaneous interactions as
well.
Within the communities, the housing units are purposefully designed to create
connection. In several SCCs, housing or condo units had windows that faced outward
toward shared spaces such as the common house or gardens. In this way, residents
would see others who were “out and about” thus increasing the probability of social
interaction. One woman stated that she really enjoyed looking outside her kitchen
window first thing in the morning. She would sit and drink her coffee and watch others
in the community starting their day as well. Likewise, SCC homes are intentionally
designed with less square footage which encourages residents to mingle in the shared
areas. For example, some individual units do not have washers and dryers and most
do not have separate mailboxes; so, shared laundry and mail rooms become areas of
connection with others. One woman discussed how the common spaces promoted
interaction, “the gardening actually has turned out to be quite a social experience and
then just wandering out in the evening to pick your lettuce for dinner, for a salad,
and running into somebody out there is a lovely experience.” (Noreen) (Fig. 5.1).
In addition to the interactions within the cohousing communities, SCC residents
are also were very involved with their surrounding community. Often these activi-
ties are aligned with the principles or focus of the SCC (e.g., spirituality, ecology,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_5
36 5 Staying Active and Engaged
Fig. 5.1 A gardening team
social action). While many interactions take place within the cohousing area, the sur-
rounding communities greatly benefit from the talents, skills, and dedication from
the senior cohousing residents. Although senior cohousing residents have high lev-
els of activity, many described the need to balance social roles with solitude. This
“public-private” tension is managed in various ways as individuals determine how
and when they will maintain social ties and also claim time for individual needs and
space. The remaining sections of this chapter will explore the social connections and
activities of residents, and ways that they capture individual time within a communal
living arrangement.
5.1 Activity Within Senior Cohousing 37
5.1 Activity Within Senior Cohousing
One of the push factors for leaving a current home and moving to an SCC is the
opportunity for greater engagement with others. As described in Chap. 4, traditional
living arrangements can make it challenging to remain involved because of mul-
tiple factors such as lack of transportation, distance, or scheduling issues. Within
the SCCs, residents build in social time that strengthens bonds and relationships.
Additionally, participation in the shared responsibility for maintaining the overall
community creates opportunities for residents to work together and to develop net-
works that increase engagement. As noted above, the design of the communities also
increases natural occurring interactions. All of these factors relate to the high level
of activity that occur within and beyond the SCC.
Purposeful activities. Purposeful activities are those that are organized and planned
to bring individuals together. Community meetings are such a time when commu-
nity residents gather. In fact, communities have the expectation that residents will
prioritize attending these meetings. As Trent states, “…once a month we have a com-
munity meeting that’s a two hour meeting and everybody who is available is expected
to show up.” As this quote indicates, community meetings are scheduled for a regular
time period (e.g., monthly) and typically have a structure such as committee reports,
actions items for decisions, and community updates. In some communities, these
meetings are followed by a meal for additional social time.
Communal meals are a typical event in senior cohousing. Many of the common
buildings have elaborate kitchens where members or rotating “cooking teams” take
turns preparing food for a shared meal and cleaning up. Both authors were invited to
shared meals during the visits. These were lovely times that involved delicious food,
bottles of wine, and a great deal of fellowship. Meals included several options that
took into account food preferences and needs such as vegan/vegetarian, low salt, and
gluten free. It is clear that there is sensitivity to diet restrictions and preferences and
a desire to be as inclusive as possible so that everyone can participate. These shared
meals are a primary time of interaction for the majority of communities, although
the frequency varied. In some communities, there would be a common meal at a set
time, such as every Sunday evening. In other communities, these set times would
be supplemented with other shared meals, as reported by Chip, “we’re a group that
does like to get together. We have two or three meals a week opportunities. There’s
always a Saturday breakfast and there are one or two dinners….”
Although many residents reported that they enjoyed their time cooking together,
residents in more than one community decided that they were not interested in prepar-
ing large meals for everyone. Tammy reported that an elaborate kitchen was designed
in her cohousing community, but no one wanted to take responsibility to cook. These
residents found other ways to stay connected and also make sure the kitchen is put to
good use. Instead of cooking for the entire group, they have potlucks and rent out the
kitchen for cooking classes and nutrition programs which brings in some revenue for
maintenance. Likewise, Dixie reported on the decision in her SCC, “Well, people just
didn’t wanna cook anymore. It’s like, been there, done that, too. Didn’t wanna cook
anymore. And so it has just kind of fizzled out. Right now, the way it is, is we have
one meal that we bring in a chef, that we pay for… very economical, ‘cause we all
have to pay for part of him. It’s like $7.00 to $8.00. And then we go out to one of the
restaurants in [town], because there’s so many great restaurants. And then we started
this concept called a pop up dinner where you bring your food, your own set ups and
your food from your house, and we just… In other words, you eat with others, but
you take care of yourself. Somebody doesn’t have to clean up and clean the kitchen
and organize.”
Besides meals, the SCC have classes and other programs onsite. Several that we
visited had special rooms for arts/crafts, woodworking, meditation and devotions,
and libraries. Residents with expertise often headed activities for the other members
such as leading yoga or forming a book club. Others formed groups around shared life
experiences. One of the authors visited a community around Mother’s Day, where
a resident had established a group for mothers who had lost a child. This shared
experience provided a space for these mothers to grieve and support others who
understood their loss. In more urban areas, individuals outside of the community
were also involved in activities within the SCC such as one where local artists rent
space in the common building. As a result, the cohousing community is included in
some of the local art walks that happen monthly. Another SCC allows neighborhood
groups in which residents are involved to meet in their common room. Through this
type of interaction the SCC is becoming more integrated into the neighborhood.
Parties and holiday celebrations also occur. Holiday celebrations provide a time
for those who have few family in the area, and also promotes relations within the
SCC. The “usual” holidays are celebrated—e.g., Thanksgiving, Christmas, Indepen-
dence Day—but festivities also occur at other times of the year. For example, a few
mentioned solstice gatherings which are part of the community calendar. In addition,
parties seem to be organized for many other reasons—or maybe no reason at all. Kim
stated, “There’s always something going on here. Parties! Sharon and Benjamin have
parties for everything. Everything they can think of. There’s always a party.”
Committee work, in which residents engage to sustain their communities, consti-
tutes another major source of joint activity. The types vary, yet there was a consistent
expectation that members would participate in committee work. While chores and
tasks are undertaken, committees are another form of social interaction within the
community. Jim stated, “[the work teams] are a connection with other people, but
then there’s also a lot of work involved…..It’s all voluntary, but there is some min-
imum level of expectation. In our group, you have to belong to at least one team
and you pick a team that you have some affinity for…. you are expected to show up
for the team meetings which are at least once a month.” Examples of committees
are gardening, social time, devotion/spiritual life, and overseeing the common house
and property. The benefits of this social time is summed up by Marge as she states,
“one of the things I really love doing is gardening. It is so wonderful in my opinion
to be able to garden with other people”.
5.1 Activity Within Senior Cohousing 39
Creative strategies were formed to deal with residents who had to miss committee
meetings or team tasks as there is an acknowledgement that people have commitments
and engagement outside of the cohousing communities. “..We allow for people to
travel. I didn’t get my hours last month, because I was gone for three weeks. We
allow for that in the overall scheme of tasks.” (Andie). This community was thinking
of setting up a payment plan option for people to financially contribute if they were
gone for extended periods and missed their work details. Andie also gave an example
of when people were “excused” from these responsibilities such as a health or family
emergency. “We had someone that just died, and his husband, as a task manager, I
asked if he could have a waiver.”
Spontaneous and unstructured activities. A benefit of living close together is the
opportunity for community members to engage in unplanned activities together. A
number of people remarked that they would ask others to go into town, see a movie,
or do something else together. As one of the community residents remarked, “There’s
so much going on and people here are interesting people who are interested in a lot of
things—opera, going to a concert or the movies. It’s not uncommon to see something
pop up on our email list that says, “anybody want to do this? …(e.g.) someone snaps
up [an extra ticket] and they go to the play together. She got a ride and he got
the ticket.” A cohousing living environment promotes spontaneous invitations and
options. For example, if one person can’t accept an invitation there are typically
others who could be asked.
As a result of the relationships between the residents, other types of unplanned
activities occur (Fig. 5.2). In one community, coffee and conversations happened
regularly. If someone was thinking about a particular topic, she or he would send
out an email and invite others to have coffee in the common room to discuss the
issue. Examples of some of the conversations that took place were political issues
and elections, death and dying, and climate change among others. As one resident
stated, “…there’s a lot of ways to have fun here, and there are also, at different times,
conversations. Like somebody will get together. Vera one time had conversations
on aging …and then we would discuss them”. As this example illustrates, activities
within the senior cohousing communities are fun and pleasurable, but also touch on
topics that are important to residents who are in the later stages of life.
Safety was an issue that was brought up frequently and the safe environment in
the SCCs promoted activity levels. Since others were around, residents felt safe to
be out in the communities and did not feel confined to their homes. Mae remarked
that “I like being able to walk out of my house even in the black of night, and walk
down [the trail] and feel safe.” This was important, as she felt secure going to visit
her neighbor after dark, which was not the case where she previously lived. Another
woman remarked that she had difficulty sleeping and would go to the common house
in the middle of the night to do puzzles, and felt very safe. This element of having
other people around, who cared about you and noticed your whereabouts, was an
important aspect of SCCs for several people.
Fig. 5.2 Happy hour and conversation
5.2 Engagement Outside the Senior Cohousing Community
Residents were also active outside of the SCC, and involvement and engagement
with the larger environment was important for many. The founder of one of the
communities once did a survey of how residents were involved in the local community
and reported that residents participated in 31 agencies within the area. In this way,
the local area is a recipient of talent, expertise, and skills of SCC members who
participate and volunteer in community life. As Marie states, “This is not like a set-
apart community… we’ve tried to be something other than just a community closed
in and upon itself.”
In many of the cohousing communities, residents were civically active and
involved in local governments or political action (Fig. 5.3). When one of the authors
called to set up a visit to the community, the resident who was coordinating the
visit stated that he was the only one around that day…. everyone else was at one of
the political rallies in town. He jokingly remarked that it might be that a few were
arrested before the day was over! A few of those interviewed discussed involvement
in political campaigns and many of the cars in the parking lots featured political
bumper stickers.
Numerous individuals volunteered in their local communities, and residents often
noted their involvement in programs related to social and environmental justice. In
one community, the SCC was very involved in Earth Day activities and clean-up in
their area. Another community hosted Crime Watch meetings in their common room
space. A few people mentioned involvement in community meal programs such as
5.2 Engagement Outside the Senior Cohousing Community 41
Fig. 5.3 Participating in social and political issues
home delivered meals or food distribution programs. Others discussed educational

programs such as reading and library series, and working in the local prison. Deb
stated that she is involved with the fire and rescue league and reading programs
among other involvements. “I’m very involved in social justice issues… I’ve tried to
broaden my horizons because I would find that just being here in [my SCC] would
not be enough for me.” Clearly, involvement in justice programs were a priority for
many senior cohousing residents.
Involvement in the arts and cultural life of the local community was also common.
As one person stated, “There’s so much going on here in the art world. That’s another
reason that I wanted to move here.” Others volunteered in cultural events at a nearby
college, such as ushering during films or music programs while others took art classes
offered in the local area. Some activities in which residents were engaged were
specific to unique challenges that they had experienced. For example, Marge stated
that, “I’m doing art work for cancer survivors and a writing group.” As can be seen,
cultural opportunities located beyond their own community were important for many
of the members who were interviewed.
While some of the SCCs have strong spiritual emphasis, many residents were also
involved with spiritual and religious activities beyond their cohousing community.
One of the women was a part-time pastor, others attended churches and were members
of religious communities, and some participated in religious-related programs such
as thrift stores and food pantries. Several of those interviewed attended meditation
and yoga classes in their area as well.
A move to a SCC can create changes in social networks. One example is trying
to retain friendships with those who live outside the cohousing community. As new
friendships develop within the SCC, changes may occur in existing relationships.
Betty described this tension, as her birthday was approaching, “I don’t see my quote
“old friends” as much as I used to. So it’s changing the social system because I do
hang out with folk. I’m going to have a birthday next week and I’m looking forward
to at least two or three celebrations…. I think that I’m not unusual that I’ve kept old
friends and I’ve lost a couple people in doing that….That’s how life is.”.
5.3 Public-Private Spaces
As discussed, it is clear that residents engage in a variety of activities within and

beyond the cohousing communities. However, those interviewed also discussed their
need to structure private or alone time. Although residents report high activity levels,
many stressed that they valued and protected their “me time” and space. Several com-
mented that the majority of those living in these communities are introverts, which
might seem counterintuitive for a communal living arrangement. Kim explained this
situation very clearly, “for introverts it’s perfect, because you go in your house and
you can be in there as much as you want, but when you come out, you don’t even
have to go make friends somewhere. You’re just here with whoever you want to be
with that’s here.” Introverts require space and time to refuel and refresh, and need
to have quiet time away from others. Those interviewed reported several different
strategies for claiming alone time within their cohousing community.
In some communities, there were clear boundaries that created quiet spaces. For
example, one resident discussed how front porches of homes were public spaces—if
people were out, it was appropriate to say hello and chat. However, back porches were
private spaces. If you saw someone on the back porches, you didn’t engage her or him
in conversation. “If they wanted to talk, they would be on the front porch. The back
porch is the quiet space.” Likewise, those living in a condo also had similar norms
where residents would open their front shades if they were available for company.
Closed shades meant that it was private time.
Norms and practices also dictated how private space is respected within the com-
munities. For example, neighbors do not simply walk into each other’s homes. Even
those communities where people rent out part of their home or had an apartment in
the common building, there are boundaries and demarcations for the private areas.
Additionally, a few people mentioned that if they needed their alone time, they would
simply ignore a knock on the door if someone came by. It seems that this practice
does not create hurt feelings or bad will, but is a practice that is respected as a “private
time” strategy by those in the community.
For couples, there is the added dimension of accommodating different personality
types and need for social/alone time. Multiple couples commented that one person
is outgoing and the other is more private. Larry gives a great example of how he and
his more extroverted wife experience interactions differently within the cohousing
5.3 Public-Private Spaces 43
community, “Jenny had been down to the office for something and then she told me,
she came up with characteristic enthusiasm saying “Boy, all I was doing was walking
from the office to the elevator and I ran into three people that we got involved in
conversations and it took me a half hour to get to the elevator. Isn’t it wonderful?
And I’m thinking, oh my god. That would be torture for me. I’m trying to get to the
elevator, and yes, I would stop and talk with those people. I probably wouldn’t have
as long a conversation and so on and so forth, but to be polite, I’m not going to brush
them off…”
In summary, the residents described their communities as places where a signif-
icant amount of formal and informal activity takes place. This was one of the pull
factors to move into a cohousing community. There were numerous planned activities
to bring people together, for fun, for social time such as common meals, and for main-
taining common spaces. In addition, however, spontaneous activities and events were
frequent occurrences as the environment promotes interactions among the residents.
While activity levels within the cohousing communities were high, the surrounding
areas also benefited from having a senior cohousing community their area. Residents
were energetically engaged with programs and events in the larger area where they
contributed their time and talents. However, the need for private time and space was
also well recognized and respected. Residents had strategies to recharge within the
context of their shared community lives. Overall, residents reported a good balance
of together and alone time which provide engagement without being overwhelmed.
Chapter 6
Benefits and Challenges
[The best part of living in senior cohousing is] the connections as I choose to have them or
not. I can initiate contact if needed, I can participate if somebody needs me. I think just the
accessibility, the fact that we’re accessible to each other, for each other. (Edna)
The differences of opinions haven’t gone away, but one of the pluses of co-housing is that
you have intention to get along with each other and ways of working out conflicts. (Mae)
Residents of senior cohousing communities readily speak of the benefits they’ve

experienced while living in a SCC. However, they also openly acknowledge the
challenges that they and their particular communities have confronted. When asked
in what ways, if any, they have grown as a result of living in senior cohousing, the
residents’ responses reflect their experiences of embracing both the advantages and
the struggles that are inherent in this particular type of housing venture.
6.1 Benefits
The senior cohousers were enthusiastic when speaking of the benefits they had expe-
rienced living in their communities. They shared many stories of their involvement
that shed light on the strengths of living in a SCC. The positive aspects they discussed
were both social and practical in nature.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_6
46 6 Benefits and Challenges
6.2 Social
Not surprisingly, the major advantage of living in senior cohousing cited was social.
After experiencing shrinking social networks while living in their previous homes,
the ready availability of engagement and interaction was a highlight for many. Marie
stated, “…the benefit is having an immediate community. You have people around.”
while Mae reported “…the ease of sociability is one of the big ones for me. Anytime
I wish to have social interactions, it’s easy to find them, and to know all of my
neighbors well and to feel like I can call on them. I know their names.”
In cohousing, socializing is easier as the proximity of others promotes interactions.
Previously friends might have lived 20 or 30 min away and in order to see them it was
necessary to schedule a time to get together and then drive a distance to meet them.
Many people noted how much they appreciated the fact that when they wanted to
socialize or felt somewhat lonely, they could simply walkout of their apartment, run
into someone and have an interesting conversation. Others commented on the ease
of socializing with others who live so close by. There is no need to drive or try to find
parking when friends live a few doors away. “Well, the benefits are a ready social life.
I mean, we laugh, and we have dinner parties, because we walk 50 steps.” (Andie).
Spontaneity was also seen as a benefit by many. If someone had an extra ticket to
the theater or suddenly decided that they’d wanted to go see a movie, for instance,
they could send an email through the community’s listserv and find someone who
would like to join them. Pop-up dinners and outings also naturally occurred. Jenny
noted that she and her husband frequently invited others over for dinner, “There’s
so many people to invite, which I do constantly, spur of the moment.” “What are
you doing? Want to come for dinner and to share the results of my experiments at
potluck?” Linda also commented, “Yeah, I agree. I think it’s just nice to know that
there are people around. Like tonight my husband is having dinner with a friend, so I
called a friend here and we’re going to get together. So, it’s just nice that I have people
in my own community that I can spend an evening or an afternoon with.” (Fig. 6.1).
While all types of social interactions may be important, many of the residents
clearly treasured the opportunity to easily develop and maintain close friendships.
The proximity to others who have shared values and interests fosters this ability. “For
me the benefits were meeting new people who are quite intelligent. That was a real
plus. Getting to know my neighbors quite well as compared to where I used to live and
just occasionally saying hello. It’s much more in-depth here.” (Chuck). Many spoke
of the importance of emotionally connecting with others on a daily basis “…being in
close proximity with the people that I’m emotionally closest to is really something I
appreciate a lot. If we were scattered around and then we just gathered together for
meetings or something it wouldn’t be like seeing the people every day.” (Faith).
The easy availability of social interactions and activities can also benefit mar-
ried couples. The media is replete with stories about the stresses that can occur in
a marriage when both individuals are retired and living together with little social
engagement outside of the home, (e.g. Akitunde, 2017; Goodman, 2011). One resi-
6.2 Social 47
Fig. 6.1 One of the married couples in a SCC
dent noted the positive impact that living in senior cohousing had on her marriage,
“My husband and I have outlets, so we don’t have to get on top of each other because
there’s nobody else to vent to… I think our marriage is stronger and it wasn’t really
in trouble at all. But there are so many more places for each of us to go. It’s not
just two people stuck in the little living room…there’s more room for members of a
couple to do different things and talk to different people and have different conver-
sations.” (Jenny).
This sense of social connectedness which is the heart of senior cohousing com-
munities, benefits residents on several different levels. One of the men that we inter-
viewed stated “…there are three diseases of life for seniors. One is isolation. The
other one is boredom, and the third, which is really a sneaker, is uselessness.” (Pete).
As can be seen, one of the major goals of senior cohousing is to promote social rela-
tionships and combat isolation. This goal is clearly being met for many residents.
Being with others who are active, participating in activities within the SCC, and
having access to events and opportunities in the outside community also helps keep
residents intellectually and physically engaged. Lastly, connectedness is a remedy for
feelings of uselessness. Residents reported that it was important to not only know that
others were there to help them; but, so was being there to help others. As one resident
stated “I think one of the biggest benefits is being able to make good friendships with
people that are right close to you. …when you need somebody, somebody’s there
for you. Or if somebody needs you, it makes you feel good to be there for them.”.
Samantha concurred, “Meaning, you know, when you care for others, that gives you
a tremendous amount of meaning. And there’s a lot of people to care for here and to
care about. You know what I mean? It’s like family.”
6.3 Practical
The availability of practical support and assistance was another benefit for which
residents cited strong appreciation. Knowing that others were there and ready to assist
with everything from small needs to major emergencies was deeply meaningful to the
senior cohousers. Being able to “run right next door” to borrow a cup of sugar, some
aspirin or even a bottle of wine was commonly mentioned. One resident recounted
the time when she ran to her patio after cutting her hand and shouted “help, does
anyone have a band-aide” and immediately several of her neighbors were there,
band-aides in hand. Others who previously had sole responsibility for the upkeep
Fig. 6.2 Working in the common area

6.3 Practical 49
and care of their own homes and yards, expressed relief at being able to share this
obligation. “I think I feel a lot more relaxed about everything because I don’t feel
that I have to deal with everything by myself.” Senior cohousing members are active
individuals who, in general, wish to share, not relinquish, all responsibility for the
care of their environment. Residents combine their knowledge and skills to maintain
the common areas and their homes (Fig. 6.2). As one resident noted “…there are so
many skills and experiences here that if you need to learn about something or how to
do something somebody’s going to know and they’re going to help you and they’ll
probably just do it with you. So, a huge benefit for me of a senior community is all
of these lifetimes of experience in one place.”
Another practical benefit that was often discussed was residents’ willingness to
help one another out with small services such as providing a ride to the airport or
the doctors, pet sitting, picking up packages and going to the grocery store. “People
give rides to the airport, people dog sit… take the dogs for walks. If I know one of
my neighbors has difficulties getting out for whatever reason, I’ll call her and I’ll
say, “Hey, I’m going to go to Trader Joe’s, do you need anything?” You know, vice
versa, someone will call me…” (Ava). Andie also reported ““Pick up and drop off.
I mean, I was going to take Lyft home from the airport yesterday, and that was like
$50. Oh, no, I’m just going to do BART; but, I had a big heavy suit case. And, so,
while I was on BART, I texted two friends. I said, “Anybody available to come pick
me up from BART in a little bit?” And Cara said, “I’m actually out in my car. I’ll just
meet you there.”””. This type of practical assistance greatly enhances ease of daily
life for the residents and also provides a sense of interconnectedness. When there are
others available who care enough to help you out and who you, in turn, can assist,
you know you’re not alone. “…that’s a real strength of this community is the being
there for others when it’s needed, yeah.” (Linda)
6.4 Challenges
While the participants we interviewed were mainly very positive about their experi-
ences living in senior cohousing, they also readily discussed some of the challenges
they face. These challenges fell into three categories—interpersonal relations, time
requirements and self-governance.
6.5 Interpersonal
While living and engaging with other people is one of the biggest benefits of life in
cohousing, it can also be one of the greatest challenges. Not all people are going to
have similar temperaments or personalities, and some may clash. “And, it’s not all…
You know?… It’s a mixed bag. It’s not totally harmonious. Some of us get along
with each other, better than other people do.” (Mae). This is a reality of group living.
A number of respondents noted the personal challenge of tolerating those who are
different and who they may not like, and not assuming that others should change.
“The challenge to me is, it’s acceptance. And to me, what that means is to be able to
accept other people’s foibles and their incapacities.” (Jewel). Ava expressed a similar
sentiment, “Yeah, and I think accepting the fact that people are different, in accepting
our differences, rather than trying to mold everyone into one type of person”.
However, conflicts between individuals do arise. In those cases, not only the indi-
viduals themselves but the entire community may be impacted. How communities
deal with such situations vary. Some communities reported having retreats, work-
shops on effective communication or bringing in an outside mediator to help resolve
difficult interpersonal conflicts. Other communities, however, are not as ready to face
such conflicts directly. In these cases, interpersonal difficulties may be glossed over.
“We haven’t worked out the problems that we have with one another. The problems
with the building are one thing… But the interpersonal difficulties that develop we
don’t deal with.” (Monica). While we didn’t see any evidence to indicate that the
functioning of these communities was threatened due to this dynamic, it did appear
that the group cohesion in cohousing communities that did not deal with conflict in
some way was less strong.
Differences of opinions and conflicts can arise when important decisions are being
discussed and decisions are being made. Some people are more adept at interpersonal
communication while others can be abrupt or rude. As a result, feelings may be hurt.
One woman explained, “…and we’re all very, very intelligent people, experienced
in so many different ways, and oh my goodness, so many smart, knowledgeable,
experienced people here, so we have meetings and some of us are more opinionated,
and just, you know, “Well yeah, it’s gotta be this way, because my experience says
you do it this way,” and we’ve experienced that in more than one team, lots of
teams.” (Ava).
One challenge is to maintain a commitment to the community even in face of con-
flict and difficult times. While some people do withdraw, a community is maintained
and prospers because the majority are willing to devote the emotional and practical
time to work though conflicts. When speaking of community meetings, Mae noted,
“Other times, it’s been …contentious, and it has been a challenge at times, and then
you don’t feel very good after you’ve left the business meeting. But, that’s just the
dance of human relationships, and we’re still in there dancing with each other to
maintain this common property.”
6.6 Amount of Time Required
All residents readily acknowledged the large amount of time taken up with meetings
when living in cohousing. Because residents jointly make decisions and are responsi-
ble for carrying out the work of the community, they are asked to attend both monthly
community-wide business meetings and smaller team meetings. Although this is true
at any time point in a community’s life, it is especially true in the beginning when a
6.6 Amount of Time Required 51
smaller group of members is working to establish the community’s mission, struc-

ture and processes. According to some who were involved in the development of new
communities, spending so much time in community-related activities encroached on
their other activities and on individual preferences such as traveling. “There were so
many meetings. It really was eating up a lot of time… we were so involved in the
community because we wanted to set up these systems and we wanted to go these
meetings and there were so many meetings… Our second year was in March, and
so many of our systems that we worked so hard to set up have been established, so
now the meetings are lessening… (Ava).
Some participants reported that their main method of interacting with others was
via work and that they really enjoyed team meetings where they could engage with
others to get things accomplished. However, not everyone was so positive. “I think
one of my disappointments, in a way, is the fact that it’s so time consuming. I find
that I spend a tremendous amount of time on different committees and so on, and
sometimes I get resentful about that.” (Deb). As mentioned in Chap. 2, variations
in amount of time that members actually devote to the community exists. Lack of
participation, however, can also cause resentment. “I’ve seen the result of some
people that don’t like meetings and they come and they get up 45 minutes into the
meeting and saying, “I have to leave. Got some place else to go.” It’s not necessarily
that. It’s that they confess later, “I hate meetings.”” (Mary)
6.7 Self-governance
Also as discussed in Chap. 2, decision making in co-housing is consensus based.

While many see this as an advantage, (i.e. everyone having a voice), most will also
acknowledge the difficulties that this entails. First of all, people note that this type
of process can be a very slow one. One person compared it to “watching paint dry”.
Another stated “One of the challenges to me is the pace at which things get done. I
consider myself an action cohouser and can’t get used to the amount to time that goes
into getting any decision made. It’s slow…and one of the things I’m not accustomed
to—is that, is the lack leadership that exist in this community by the nature of having
to go with consensus. You can’t take the lead in many things without being yelled
at for being an authoritarian personality; so, you have to be much more considerate
when you want to advocate for something. You can’t just assume that because it seems
like a good idea to you that it will seems that way to other people.” (Patty). As is
obvious from this quote, for those who are used to moving quickly or are accustomed
to making decisions and having them followed, it can be quite a challenge to take
things at slower pace and allow everyone to have a voice. This same challenge can
be felt by those who were used to having the home domain completely under their
control, “I think it’s difficult for some Americans to understand the idea of consensus
and learn how to balance life together. I know all the 50 years I was married and
raising the kids, the house was my domain, and I decided what we are going to eat,
and I decided when we were going to go places and, you know, how the house was
going to be kept, how the garden was going to be kept. All of that was my decision
and nobody challenged but here everybody’s got an opinion.” (Regina).
As previously noted, not all communities define ‘consensus decision-making” in
the same way. But, the process of defining what is meant by consensus can be difficult,
“Consensus is assumed to be of the form that many Quaker communities have but,
the ideologically strong part of this population [i.e. community] wants unanimity
and they do not want to have majority rule. So, they’re struggling to see if they can
define a form of consensus which is not majoritarian, and which is nevertheless on
some level unanimous. They want to find a way of defining unanimity so that it
doesn’t coerce agreement.” When consensus decision-making is defined as 100%
agreement, difficulties can arise because even one person disagreeing can block a
decision from moving forward. Larry reported “But working within a consensus,
you can’t vote the other way and allow the group to go on at all…And so you either
have to subordinate your own voice and say no, I’m going to go along with that, or
you have to mess up the whole enterprise, which you’re probably not willing to do.
So, most of the time, you end up much more subordinating yourself in that kind of
a system.”
Communities handle dissenting opinions and votes in different ways. In one com-
munity residents mentioned, within their culture is the expectation, that a negative
vote must be based upon what one believes is in the best interest of the community
and not on personal preference alone. In another community, when an individual
or small group disagrees with a proposed decision and agreement cannot be found
during the community meeting, “… a facilitator and interested parties will discuss it
with you and see under what circumstances you would remove your block … Then if
after three times, if it hasn’t been resolved, we go to a super majority, which is 80%.”
(Trent). In another community, when there is disagreement, those interested in the
issue will gather together to see if alternate solutions can be found or a compromise
achieved. If so, they then bring the proposed solution back to the larger group.
Some of the most contentious problems seem to arise when discussions sponta-
neously arise during a community-wide meeting or are presented with little prepara-
tion. In order to avoid these situations, some communities have worked out processes
for bringing proposals to the community meeting. In some SCCs, a small committee
is formed to run the monthly meetings and those interested in advancing a proposal
first bring their ideas to the committee for feedback, thoughts on how to improve the
proposal or suggestions for research to undergird the proposal before it comes to the
floor. In other communities, those interested in bringing up an idea at a community-
wide meeting will first survey community residents to see what reactions they may
receive. Questions, negative comments and suggestions are all used to refine an idea
and at times, members may engage in preparatory education before an idea is brought
up at a community meeting.
In spite of this, all members of a community may not agree on a certain decision.
As one member indicated the real challenge is for anyone who grew up in the U.S.
to move from an individualistic “position-based mode” to a “concern-based mode”
(Bob). In the end, as Bob suggested, the best question for cohousers to ask themselves
when faced with a choice they’re not fond of, is not “Is this what I really want” but
6.7 Self-governance 53
rather, “Can I live with it”. If the answer is “yes”, then he suggests that the member
do what is best for the community and let the decision move forward.
As can be seen, life in senior cohousing communities involves both great benefits
and some real challenges. The joy of community is living close to others for whom
you care and who care for you. The flip side of this benefit is the proximity of and
the need to work with others who you may find irritating. Likewise, the ability to
participate in a community that fosters independence and active engagement among
like-minded individuals can be a true gift. This ability, however, is also accompanied
by the need, at times, to let go of individual desires and to work for the good of the
whole.
References
Akitunde, A. (2017). Retirement can hurt your marriage (And What You Can Do About It). Huffin-
gton Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/divorce-after-50-retirement_n_3286342.
html.
Goodman, M. (2011). Too much togetherness: Surviving retirement as a couple. Springville, UT:
Bonneville Books.
Chapter 7
Looking to the Future—Aging in Place
My major thing is that as the years go by and one gets older, one starts thinking more and
more about the need to be in a support system, and I want to be a support to other people.
I’d like to have a support system around me, and I don’t want to run out of choices…. (Mae)
While previous chapters have summarized why people move to senior cohousing
and their subsequent experiences, this chapter will examine how senior cohousing
residents see their future as they age within the community. An important issue
brought up in numerous conversations was ability to receive and give support. This
chapter will summarize thoughts and hopes of residents as they look into coming
years.
7.1 Hopes for Aging Within Senior Cohousing
As Mae identifies in the quote above, senior cohousing provides older adults with
a support system that surrounds them. Several people discussed the desire to be
among others, and to not be by themselves as they age and face the end of their
lives (Fig. 7.1). Noreen states, “There’s a sense of ease knowing that we’re not gonna
be alone. Knowing that there are people around who care……. That’s the way I
wanna live and the way I wanna die.” Stephanie echoed this sentiment with a desire
to end her life within a support system where she has held membership and been
cared about. She stated, “I want somebody to know me when I die. I don’t want to
die alone.”

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_7
56 7 Looking to the Future—Aging in Place
Fig. 7.1 Connection and care
Part of the hope of living out one’s life in a SCC is the opportunity to age with
dignity. This idea includes being surrounded by individuals who accept you as an
aging person. Marge states that “I wanted to be able to age gracefully and stay in one
place doing it. Both the social aspects of having people around and having a nice place.
Being able to [age] without having to be in a nursing home or care facility that I’ve
seen other people be in.” This sentiment represents a way of thinking about long-term
care (LTC) as something to be avoided—the feeling that LTC strips an individual of
her or his dignity and is more of an institutional, versus home environment. Others
also indicated that they could not envision themselves living in a long-term care
setting.
The cohousing communities provided space for the residents to discuss aging
which promotes clarity and decision making as they look forward. The process
of being with others and entertaining these important, but often unspoken issues,
is valued (Fig. 7.2). Lucy stated that “we’ve had so many useful meetings or
opportunities to talk about aging, and what it has meant for us, and what we expect
it will mean for us in the future, and how to be ready for it. That’s one of the most
valuable things I’ve found in senior cohousing.”
7.2 Support in Senior Cohousing 57
Fig. 7.2 Pets are part of the family in SCCs
7.2 Support in Senior Cohousing
As people discussed growing older within the cohousing communities, they stressed
the importance of giving and receiving support. There are various reasons that people
receive care as they age within the community. In addition, the cohousing communi-
ties had different types of structures to address support needs—ranging from ad hoc
and informal processes to more elaborate and structured approaches.
When a community member faced a health challenge, others often became
involved in multiple ways. Beneath these practices is a social norm that when an
individual requires assistance, others in the community will provide aid. There is an
expectation that people will be supportive and in return, there is security that help
will be available when they need assistance. Mary discusses the reciprocal belief
about care when she was in a wheelchair for six weeks, “Everybody here is very
aware that they want to help me because they need help every now and then and they
want the support and they want the willingness and compassion of others to be there
and available. You just understand that that is what we’re about there.”
Those interviewed shared several examples of how support was provided within
their cohousing communities. One woman recounted how the community became
involved immediately when she was taken to the hospital. “Bridget followed the
ambulance all the way down to the hospital and stayed with me until my daughter
came [from out of town]. She came right with me and stayed in the hospital. It was
so wonderful”.
Support is also provided when people are convalescing from a health challenge.
While a person may be well enough to be back home, there still may be functional
limitations in what she or he is able to do. If a partner/spouse is available and serving
as the caregiver, the community rallies around the couple by delivering meals, running
errands, and providing social contact. Billy recounted a story of a couple that needed
different furniture after someone had shoulder surgery. “So, people said, ‘Oh, I’ve
got a recliner you can use to sleep in; let’s move it to your house.’ That kind of thing
is just matter of fact.”
Support is even more crucial when an individual lives alone and there is not
another individual to assume the primary caregiver role. This was the case with Pete
who had no family in the area. After suffering a stroke, “I was rushed to the hospital,
and then in rehab for a couple of weeks. I didn’t do a thing. Others came in my house,
they cleaned out the fridge. They arranged for a companion [upon discharge]. All I
had to do was worry about getting well.” Even relative newcomers to the community
receive extensive care if they require it. One person described how extraordinary the
experience was for her. “I had surgery after I was here for a year. It was just totally not
within my realm of knowledge or experience that people that I considered neighbors
came to help. I had somebody doing the laundry and somebody help me with food,
and somebody changing my bed. I never experienced anything like that and I didn’t
plan on it. I was prepared to hire somebody to do this for me but I didn’t have to. It
was just an amazing experience.”
As part of the discussions about providing assistance, there was also a sense
that individuals were “duty bound” to take good care of themselves so they would
not overtax support systems. Francis described drinking green smoothies and taking
vitamins to keep his health as good as possible to prevent others having to become his
care provider. Additionally, one of the men described a health crisis and the resulting
change in his behavior, “I was in the ICU for a while and then rehab. One of the
things that this has done is made me realize that I have a strong obligation to the
community, to be well, not put everyone through all the grief again. Now I go to the
gym five days a week and do yoga.” An aspect of the norm of support is staying
as healthy as possible so others will not have to be in an unnecessary caregiving
situation.
In addition to health-related experiences, older adults face other challenges that
require support and assistance. One area is loss, such as becoming widowed. When
a spouse or partner dies, a primary need is to emotional support to get through
the difficult time. Samantha describes the loss of her husband, “When Doug died…..
other people saw what was happening and within minutes they were there. You know,
even before the end they came. Sitting around the table and giving me support. I mean
– where do you get that kind of community?”
Another loss that is experienced is the onset of dementia in one of the residents.
This situation can be complex as the disease impacts functioning in multiple ways.
However, people with dementia, in most instances, were living with a spouse as those
7.2 Support in Senior Cohousing 59
who were living alone with this condition often left the SCC for a more supportive
environment. For those with a spouse or partner, other residents were willing to assist
with tasks associated with care provision such as providing respite, companionship,
and running errands. One person described how others recognized the stress expe-
rienced in providing care… “then sometimes people decided that I needed a mental
health day, so they took me out to lunch.”
The various cohousing communities had different models for providing support.
In some SCCs, the community expectation of support and aid for each other is an
informal process. While the principle of support exists, there is no committee or
formal process about how assistance is provided. Dottie described this process in her
cohousing community, “We as a group haven’t set any policies, it’s more individual.
People here are very helpful when someone has a medical emergency and taking
people to the doctor or getting food for them. That kind of thing. But there’s been no
formal acknowledgement about what people would do.”
Other senior cohousing communities have formalized care structures as part of
their organizational plan. Pete indicated that his cohousing community has estab-
lished an extensive resource list of services in the area that residents can contact,
as needed. However, he also serves on a resource team, which “establishes a net-
work of help for people who need it within the community…. We have to put our
money where our mouth as… we’re dedicated to having people age in place. You
can’t not work on that”. Stephanie describes a complex care structure which begins
with every resident having a personal file with a living will, medical chart and other
relevant information. In addition, this community has a chart with activities that are
provided to members when there is a health situation, such as doing light housework,
transportation, taking care of a pet. Other community members sign up to take on
these tasks. In the formal support model, the provision of assistance is situated in a
committee or group which takes primary responsibility to make assure that help is
provided to the individual who needs it.
7.3 Limits of Support
As described, there is a great deal of support provided within senior cohousing

communities. The goal is to allow individuals to stay in their homes and SCCs
as long as possible. However, there are limits to the amount and type of support
that is expected in these communities. It was clear from the community residents
that extended or complex caregiving was outside the bounds of what is expected of
others. A number of people commented on this issue. Kim stated, “We do have some
intention of helping each other through temporary conditions, but … if it’s going on
for years or sort of indefinitely, there would be limits to what we can do.” Another
resident stated, “We’re not set up to be assisted living. It’s really easy to fix a meal
and take it over, and do laundry or drive somebody to the grocery store, but if you
needed full-time nursing you will have to hire someone.”
One of the limits appears to be when someone requires intimate caregiving. Pete
stated that, “Martha broke her hip. We cooked for her. But we won’t touch you.
Nobody’s going to come in and bathe you. That connection has to be professional.”
Deb described her responsibility to care for her 100 year old mother who lived with
her. “I can take care of her, and I don’t expect the community to. I wouldn’t expect
my neighbors to do that. I mean, that’s just asking too much.” Betty summed up the
limits of care succinctly, “Aging in place is what we do – everything up until personal
care.”
In order to handle the care responsibilities in some the communities, people were
hired to assist in various ways. In a couple of the SCCs, maintenance of the com-
munity was beyond the capacity, or interest, of the residents and certain chores were
hired out. Sometimes this exchange involved a type of bartering relationship—the
community would provide someone with something in exchange for doing work.
Tammy described the situation in her SCC. “We have hired a handy man and we
have a deal worked out with him where he can use our shop area when he works
here and in turn he gives us a break on what he charges. Instead of us doing all the
repair work, you know.” Faith described how the community used an unoccupied
apartment to bring in help. “We have a little apartment that’s upstairs in the commu-
nity house….. It’s a couple with a preschool girl. So she [the wife] does some things
around here for us.”
For the most part, having residents who are in on-going poor states of health
is somewhat unusual. When someone does require assistance, however, help can be
brought in from outside the community so individuals can remain in their homes. Lily
described how one of the residents in her community was able to stay there even in a
state of very poor health. “Sue is in a wheelchair and she has some weird neurological
thing and she can’t use her legs at all. Now she has 24 hour care there in case she
falls. …. So people have assistance. One lady even has hospice help. That’s all from
the outside, you know.” In another community, the average age was 90 years and
collectively, the residents hired a physical therapy assistant. She worked with several
residents on the given day she came to the community—which was convenient for
everyone (Fig. 7.3). Not all residents have the financial means to pay for on-going
in-home help, however. In cases in which a person has continuing personal care
needs or progressive memory loss and cannot afford to hire permanent help, then a
move to a more supportive environment will eventually become necessary. In several
of the communities, previous residents had made the decision for financial or other
reasons to move to an assistant living community. Members of one community noted
that two former residents had relocated to a nearby assisted living facility and that
current SCC residents who knew the two would go to visit their former community
members.
7.4 Envisioning the Future 61
Fig. 7.3 A physical therapy session
7.4 Envisioning the Future
Thinking about their future, the residents were clear that part of the appeal of senior
cohousing is that they are in a collective of aging individuals. In this way, there is
security about the future. Ava stated that “at least one person, if not more, will be
looking out for us, as we will be doing with those around us. As we grow older, we
will be ok. We are in good hands.”
Future considerations include more than simply attending to the physical changes
that accompany aging. John states that, “The support extends beyond providing
physical health to people when they need it. There is a kind of energy around people
that are here already. … It’s important because everybody knows if they really need
it, they can tap into it.” Suzanne also elaborated on that point, “We know what’s
going to be here for us. We don’t have too many elders that require care yet. But it
makes us feel more secure as we go into that phase.”
While there is an acceptance of aging, and a security in living among others in the
same life phase, there are also questions about how to meet some of the challenges.
Nancy described the aging of her SCC. “I’ve been on the dying at home committee…
and know we’re getting older and physically can’t do what we use to do….. so, we
don’t know [what the future will hold]”. In particular, those interviewed described
some of the struggles of having residents with multiple and complex conditions.
“We have one person who’s dealing with an encroaching dementia and her loss of
her short term memory. There are difficulties in dealing with that. And that will get
worse and it’s going to incur in more people. I don’t exactly know how we’re going
to deal with all of this. We’re going to have to see as it comes.” (Larry). The concern
about potential memory loss among community residents was brought up several
times. Because the SCC movement is relatively new, not many communities have
had to face this issue. While expressing concern over this possibility, community
members, on the whole, were hopeful that just as they had dealt with so many other
dilemmas in the development and running of their SCC, they would be able to create
feasible and effective approaches for facing this challenge as well.
The reality of living is that at some point, the future will include the end of
life. Within the interviews, it was clear that death and dying is discussed freely
within senior cohousing communities. A few examples demonstrate the comfort that
people feel in talking about these topics. At one of the cohousing communities, the
residents had prepared for the death of a woman with dementia, Joy, who had been
hospitalized and was not expected to live. In the tour of the community, the art room
contained a cardboard casket covered with beautiful magic marker drawings. The
woman offering the tour explained that community residents had decorated the casket
to bring Joy back home to say good bye to her. Remarkably, Joy recovered and was
back home—and still quite alive! As a result, her husband suggested that they keep
the casket “as she is going to die sometime”. Instead of being a symbol of despair,
the beautiful casket represented the love and care that the community felt for Joy and
was not viewed as macabre reminder of death.
A second example demonstrates the sense of agency and empowerment one of the
residents had when facing his own death from cancer. Darren decided that he would
have a celebration of his life when he was still alive and had a gathering within his
cohousing community. After that, he took his own life on a pre-determined day. In a
group interview, several individuals chimed in to tell the story—it was a very positive
and moving experience for them. “We had a roast for Darren and we got to sign a
coffin top that he had brought down and put in the multi-purpose room. He built his
own coffin….a couple of days later, he took the compound of drugs. He told us and
his family too. He made sure that everyone was with him on this… He was a man
of great self-discipline and he handled himself beautifully for the whole journey. It’s
something to look up to. The way he exited life was so positive. It was life affirming
actually.”
Overall, the majority of those interviewed remained optimistic about the future
and aging within a cohousing community. There was a sense that they would be able
to meet the challenges of the coming years and a steadfast desire to remain in the
SCC as long as possible. Pete summed it up this way, “… this [senior cohousing] is
a model for seniors to live independently and be recognizing that they’re going to
get frail. Then we can prepare for it in a lot of different ways.”
Chapter 8
Advice from Senior Cohousers
You’re joining a social group, not just buying an apartment. (Tom)
Leave your ego at the door. (Frank)
It takes courage to be happy. (Ava)
The purpose of our visiting senior cohousing communities and interviewing residents
was to learn about their authentic lived experiences. After listening to residents’ sto-
ries concerning what they loved and struggled with in their communities, we wanted
to hear what recommendations they would offer to others who were considering a
move to senior cohousing. Residents eagerly provided heart-felt advice, born of their
desire to help guide other older adults who are looking for community and, also, to
help ensure that potential new residents are those who can contribute to the life and
well-being of a community. The advice given falls into three board categories—do
adequate research, engage in honest self-reflection, and be courageous.
8.1 Adequate Research
The most common piece of advice was to visit multiple communities, spend time
and get to know those living in each. Chuck suggested, “If you have a place in mind.
Find out as much as you can about it and just talk to a lot of people, like, “What’s
it like to live here? How much work is there? Do people get along?” All that.”
Communities differ in how they deal with inquiries from potential new members.
Larger SCCs often have membership committees that will communicate and meet
with those who are interested in finding out more about their particular community.
Smaller communities may offer the opportunity to speak with a designated contact
person. All will provide tours. A larger community that one of the authors visited had
a specific day of the month when they offered an “orientation” to senior cohousing and
provided a tour of their condo facility. The purpose of the orientation was to educate

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_8
64 8 Advice from Senior Cohousers
visitors about the nature of life in senior cohousing and to give them an opportunity
to have specific questions answered. Visitors were then invited to participate in a
community dinner after the tour so that they could meet a variety of residents and get
a “feel” for the personality of the community. While smaller communities may not
have formal membership committees, they also encourage those who are interested
to come for a visit. “We really insist that people come and look and get acquainted
and meet people, and I think that is really important, and talk to more than just one
person. Talk to different people and get your questions answered.” (Eve) (Fig. 8.1).
Once inquirers have narrowed down their search to a particular community, it
was recommended that they get to know the residents who live there “…get to know
it before you make a decision. And, really try to get to know the particular people
and the particular circumstances. ‘Cause they’re all very different, … they’ll all have
Fig. 8.1 Open House at Wolf Creek Lodge

8.1 Adequate Research 65
different flavors.” (Billy). Many suggested that those who are interested investigate
the possibility of visiting the community for a longer period of time. SCCs often
have a guest room where potential new members can stay for a day or two. Some
participants suggested that those interested stay for longer periods of time when
possible, by renting a unit for a couple of weeks or engaging in a house swap. If
spending a more prolonged period of time is not possible, it was recommended
that those interested make repeated visits to find out more about the community and
residents. Advice included going to the monthly business meeting, learning about the
community’s decision-making process, participating in a work day, attending dinners
and just “hanging out” with residents to find out about their interests, activities and
values.
Spending time at a community may lead to the decision that this type of living
situation, or this particular community, is not for you. “…we’ve had people stay for
a week or two, and we both parted saying, well, you decided this kind of living isn’t
for you, and we agree with you. We got to know you well enough to see that you’re
set in certain ways of what you’re looking for, and it’s not here, and it took that long
for you to decide. You couldn’t decide it in a day or two. It might’ve taken a bunch of
days of visiting.” (Francis). Alternately, of course, a longer visit may confirm your
belief in your goodness-of-fit with the community and surrounding environment. “I
tell them that they buy the community, not the home. That’s the exact opposite of
middle America which buys the home but not the community.” (Pete).
8.2 Self-reflection
Living in senior cohousing is an advantage for many but it is not for everyone.
Residents encouraged those who may be considering senior cohousing to honestly
consider whether they have the temperament to do so and the desire to fully partic-
ipate. One resident suggested, “Inventory your needs very specifically in terms of
what you can give and what you need to receive. Be very honest. Take an inventory
of yourself, and be very honest and authentic about what you have to offer and what
you need to receive.” (Edna). It is important to know if you’re the type of person
who prefers participating in outings that are planned and organized by others and
who appreciates having a plethora of regularly scheduled activities in which you
can participate but for which you have no responsibility. If so, senior cohousing is
probability not for you. One participant, Betty, recalled speaking with a woman who
was very “gung-ho” about moving into the SCC but who was bothered by the work
requirement. When exploring this further with the woman, Betty noted “She said,
she has friends down the way about ten minutes and they pay more money than here
per month, but they have an art director, they have tours every week, … but all of
that they have to pay people to do that for you and they plan it.” And I said, “Well I
guess you’ll have to go to the [Life Plan Community]. And she did.” Jenny’s advice
about areas to consider for self-reflection was very sage “…Ask yourself if this fits
your own needs. At the same time, take the opportunity to look at yourself. Have
you had issues with getting along with people? This should not turn you away, if
so, but see such a community as a place to learn and grow. Ask seriously how you
can contribute, are you a giver or a taker? How much privacy do you require? Can
you say no or are you strongly influenced by others’ viewpoints? An intentional
community requires a lot of generosity and time, forbearance, consideration, even
forgiveness and letting go. Can you … reserve judgment, adjust in a situation easily,
be accepting? Are you able to ask for help when needed?”
Flexibility and tolerance. One of the most common pieces of advice given was that
those contemplating cohousing be flexible and tolerant. Residents often mentioned
the need to be open to others, to be respectful of those who’s personalities are differ-
ent, and to be accepting of the unexpected. Jewel advised, “There has to be a certain
level of cooperation, there has to be respect for each other’s privacy. We have to be
mindful of what we’re saying and listen to what they’re saying and receive it.”. Others
highlighted flexibility and tolerance in relationship to the community’s consensus
decision-making process. While this type of self-governance allows for maximum
input of all and often contributes to creative solutions, as mentioned previously, it
is also time-consuming and, at times, hard work. The ability to effectively partici-
pate in this process is necessary both to avoid personal frustration and to effectively
contribute to the community. Noreen summed up of the feelings of many when she
stated “Be prepared to be flexible. Do assume good intent. Another motto, “I can
live with it.” Not, it’s exactly my perfect thing but you have to be willing to, it’s give
and take, like in a marriage …And you have to be okay with that.”. Mary recounted
the story of one resident who eventually made to the decision to leave, “I think he
realized that he was not prepared for consensus decision making. That’s where it
really hit him hard. He went and learned a lot about consensus decision-making, but
it didn’t help because emotionally in his thinking, he was still back on the Libertarian
wavelength.”
Realistic expectations. Others stressed how important it is for those considering
senior cohousing to have realistic expectations and take the time to examine their
assumptions and beliefs before making a final decision. Disappointment or frustration
may occur due to unrealistic concepts of community. Some may expect higher levels
of intimacy among members than commonly occurs and become disillusioned if
this is not the case. Others may assume that more energetic members will keep the
community going and that their own active participation will not really be needed.
Member participation, however, is critical to the effective functioning of cohousing
developments. Respondents strongly advised that potential cohousers consider their
desire and ability to take this responsibility seriously, “Be very open to the idea
of working actively in the community…That’s what I would tell them ‘cause a
community needs you.” (Paige), and “I would just say that they understand the work
commitment.. They have to work. And they have to work and play well with others
for the best experience.” (Dixie). Ava concurred, “You’re gonna get out as much as
you put in.”
Residents agreed that those interested in senor cohousing should ensure that their
expectations are realistic. Realize that while there is a strong probability that you will
8.2 Self-reflection 67
find good friends within the community, it is also likely that there will be others who
you will find bothersome. Understand that conflicts will arise, there will be struggles,
at times, and that resolution takes hard work by good-hearted people. When speaking
of realistic expectations, one resident advised “Make sure that you’re seeing things
that are real. Well, I had an idea that the people here were super people. In a sense
that they wouldn’t react the way most people do. They were too good to be true…
So, look at things as they really are. They’re people and you have to see them that
way. They have their faults like everybody else…They get sick. They get well. And
they get mad, yeah, they get down. And think that if I were to talk to somebody
who has never experienced this, never known, the first thing I would say is make sure
you’re seeing things that are real.” (Patty). Another person recommended, “I’d say be
absolutely realistic about people. Don’t think you’re gonna move in here and we’re
all gonna love each other and we’re all gonna do things together and gather down here
every night and watch TV and play games… you have to be really, really be realistic
about things. And be responsible for yourself and not depend upon everybody here
to make you a happy person.” (Tammy, SS).
Be willing to grow. As discussed earlier, there are multiple opportunities for per-
sonal growth when living in senior cohousing (Fig. 8.2). However, not everyone is
interested in or open to change within themselves or in their way of life. And so,
cohousers recommend, “Be sure that you’re willing and open to growing, because
the opportunities are there, and if you are not willing to grow, personally as well
as community, an intentional community may be more challenging than you can
handle, because…it’s an incredible opportunity, but if you’re the kind of person that
just is, “I like the way my life is right now, I like living in my own place. I like having
my own rules, I like doing it my own way, and I don’t have to listen to anybody
else,” this is not the kind of community for you. It isn’t, and that’s okay. That’s
perfectly okay. There’s all kinds of communities out there.” (Ava). Perhaps one of
those most challenging and rewarding areas of growth has to do with letting go of
ego. The opportunity to let go of ego usually comes when one is faced with varying
options, such as: to push a strong personal preference or go along with the will of
the majority; to dominate the workings of a committee or let others take charge; to
hold onto power or relinquish control; to persist in one’s opinions or consider that
another’s perspective may have equal value. One woman (Deb) gave an example
of her own thinking about ego before she moved into cohousing, “…the concept of
trying to prove yourself, or your ego. I mean, you have to let go of that, you know,
and I thought about that long and hard, when I moved here, and I thought, when you
move there, you don’t have to prove anything, you know. I’ve had a successful life.
I’ve proved myself enough, and I’ll let go of that. I don’t have to be proving anything
to anyone or have my ego up here…we need to keep our ego outside the door when
we come into meetings, and that’s a hard step. That’s a big step.”
Fig. 8.2 Participating in discussions with others
8.3 Be Courageous
Making the decision to move into a senior cohousing community may not be an
easy one for many. Some who are drawn to living in a SCC may find that they are
also tentative about taking this step (Fig. 8.3). After all, for most, cohousing means
leaving behind the known, the comfortable, the way things have always been done.
As a result, some may hesitate and think, “Perhaps I’ll make the move later, when
I’m older”. However, senior cohousers advise that those who are attracted to life
in an SCC make the move sooner rather than later. The primary reason given is
that having others around to share your life with is much better than being isolated
or lonely and that cohousing is rewarding and fun. Therefore, many suggest that it
makes sense to relocate to cohousing when one is relatively young, healthy and able
to take advantage of all community living has to offer.
Another practical reason has to do with reciprocity. As described in previous
chapters, senior cohousers value the support they receive from and are able to give
to others. However, those with existing needs for support should not move in with
the expectation that others will take care of them. As Noreen explained, “…if you
wait until you need it [support], until you need to move, you’ve waited too long
because you need time to build the social capital”. So, senior cohousers advise,
doing research, visiting a variety of SCCs, getting to the know the residents at your
preferred community, engaging in self-reflection and if after all of this, you feel
drawn to life in a particular community, go ahead, and make the move. Ava explains,
8.3 Be Courageous 69
Fig. 8.3 Welcoming guests and new residents
“It takes a lot of courage to be happy. It takes a lot of courage to be happy, and to
make your life happy, because life is problems, and it takes a lot of courage to get
what you want and it’s scary. Jenny agreed, “…don’t hesitate, have courage. And if
you don’t have a lot of courage, have a sense of adventure.”
In sum, if you are seriously considering a move to a senior cohousing, keep in
mind that it is important to visit several communities and experience life within
a community by having an extended stay, if possible. Additionally, consider you
needs, your disposition and what you are willing to offer. Finally, and importantly,
be prepared for growth and a new adventure.
Chapter 9
Living and Learning—The Senior
Cohousing Experience
The heart of the communities is the relationships. (Kim)
You know, it takes all kinds to make a heaven. We’re all very independent and yet we respect
each other’s independence. We rely on our commitment to each other. (Earl)
After visiting twelve senior cohousing communities, the major question we had as
authors were—What did we learn? While there were a number of important findings,
which evolved into the previous chapters of this book, there were three overarching
themes that came through. First, people who move into Senior Cohousing desire
connection beyond what is found in typical neighborhoods and in many other types of
senior housing communities. Secondly, being part of a senior cohousing community
fosters personal growth and development for those who have open hearts and minds.
Finally, there are some important issues for the SCC movement to consider as older
adults move forward in developing ever more cohousing communities.
9.1 The Desire for Connection
As the quote by Kim at the beginning of this chapter exemplifies, social connection
is the dominating theme within cohousing communities. In every chapter of this
book, relationships are discussed in some way. Senior cohousing enables individ-
uals to more easily stay connected to others and avoid the isolation that may arise
from living in other types senior housing where the development of community is
not a central principle (Fig. 9.1). There is reciprocity in the relationships formed
among community members. Not only do members receive emotional and practical
assistance when needed, but, importantly, they are also able to provide meaningful
help to others. The significance of both receiving and providing aid was a consistent
theme in our conversations. Multiple participants noted how these interactions are
reminiscent of neighborhoods that were common in their youths but which are now

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_9
72 9 Living and Learning—The Senior Cohousing Experience
Fig. 9.1 Connection through shared interests and activities
vanishing due to an increasing mobile and fast-paced society. Marie summed it up

this way, “how do we restore a sense of neighborliness and community? … a lot of
what is being lived out here is taking care of a neighbor or running to the store or
taking someone to the airport. Those are the kinds of things that neighbors used to
do.”
To be clear, however, the desire for connection does not mean that the residents in
senior cohousing want to do everything together! The majority of those interviewed
plainly stated that they needed time to be alone, to have some privacy, and to have con-
tacts away from the SCC. Just like other types of relationships, living in a cohousing
community often involves spending time together, time alone, and time with others.
Those who seemed the most satisfied with the decision of relocating to a SCC had
negotiated this balance well. Many participants spoke enthusiastically about activ-
ities in which they were involved outside of the SCC. From volunteering, running
for office, engaging in artistic pursuits, and working part-time to kayaking, biking,
hiking and enjoying cultural events, participants took advantage of opportunities in
the larger community. This connection to and engagement with the surrounding area
was important for many residents. Many were clear that the desire to move to the
particular SCC where they lived included a desire to be part of the larger community.
We visited senior cohousing communities in rural areas, smaller cities and towns, and
larger urban areas. Although there was variation in locales, the residents discussed
how the particular setting in which their SCC was located added to their quality of
life and satisfaction with their community.
9.2 Growth and Development 73
9.2 Growth and Development
Another theme that ran through many conversations focused on the personal growth
and development experienced as a result of living in a SCC. The vast majority of
residents agreed that they had grown since coming to live in their cohousing com-
munity. They reported that if you really want to make cohousing work for yourself
and the community, then you need embrace both the benefits and then challenges as
described in Chap. 6. The experience of facing these challenges is how one grows.
One person reported that living in cohousing is a “a continuous journey” of growth
(Mae). Stephanie agreed “Well, I think community has a lot of benefits, especially as
you get older… You give and you take, and so forth. And there’s a lot of satisfaction
in that because there’s a lot of self-growth in it. And so you begin to realize that
you become a better person.” The growth that residents spoke of took many forms
but most centered on developing greater interpersonal skills and cultivating patience,
tolerance and the ability to let go (Fig. 9.2).
In Chap. 2, we briefly described the theory of gerotranscendence in which our
study was rooted and posed the question of whether living in this type of community
helps foster older adults’ continued growth. According to Tornstam (2005, 2011),
growth in later life occurs on Cosmic, Self and Social/Personal levels. When speaking
of their experiences within their SCCs, participants’ stories, for the most part, did not
speak of change at the Cosmic level. Increased feelings of oneness with the universe,
connection to both past and future generations and the ability to see the universal
in individual objects, for example, were not themes reflected in their conversations.
Fig. 9.2 Sharing expertise with others

One aspect of the Cosmic arena that was mentioned, however, had to do with death.
While no participant specifically mentioned a decrease fear of death, many residents
did discuss their increased consideration of aging-in-place, the importance to being
able talk about death with other residents, and even the opportunity to celebrate the
coming death of a person with a terminal illness. As stated previously, Durrett (2009)
claims that potential SCC members’ participation in Study Group I activities, which
heavily focus on the reality of growing older and aging-in-place, is crucial to the
development of community in senior cohousing. Study Group 1 is part of the com-
prehensive model developed by Henry Neilsen for the creation of senior cohousing
communities. Members of some of the communities that we visited had participated
in Study Group 1 as part of the communities’ early developmental processes. This
may have primed some communities to have difficult conversations about aging and
death. However, for other communities these conversations seem to occur naturally as
individuals experienced their own and others’ aging process and witnessed the deaths
of community members they held dear. While such experiences transpire for all older
adults, senior cohousing seems to present the opportunity for many to process these
realities with others whom they trust and to grow in their own understanding and
acceptance of the aging process and mortality.
On the level of Self, the major theme discussed was related to a decrease in
self-centeredness. Multiple, although not all, residents noted their initial growing
realization and then intentional struggle to accept the validity of the perspectives and
opinions of others with whom they did not agree. While this struggle was often a
frustrating one, residents who discussed this aspect, noted their deliberate develop-
ment of new strategies to deal with “difficult” members—whether this be practicing
patience, disengaging from problematic conversations to consider another’s point
of view or engaging in research to further understand another’s perspective. Some
described this growth in terms of letting go of ego and of the need to be in charge.
Change in this aspect of self can be one of the hardest we as humans face. Members’
open discussion, in some SCCs, of the importance of “leaving their ego at the door”
for the good of the community seemed to reinforce the significance of growth in this
area.
Most of the change discussed by senior cohousing residents can be found in
themes related to the Social/Personal level. When reflecting on change, the major-
ity of residents who responded noted growth in compassion, respect and patience
(see Fig. 9.3). Residents reported that development in these areas was necessary
to effectively deal with other members. They recognized that being short-tempered
or sharp tongued was detrimental to community cohesiveness. Several stated that
previously they had not fully recognized how hurtful such behavior was but when
living and working with others day in day out, the negative impact of this type of
conduct became much more evident. Likewise, deliberate efforts to grow in the areas
of tolerance and non-judgmentalism were frequently mentioned by residents. They
attributed these efforts to their desire to maintain positive interactions among com-
munity members. Respondents noted that, while in the past they could simply ignore
or avoid those they didn’t like, this was not possible when living in community. Sev-
eral stated that although they did not particularly like everyone living in their SCC,
9.2 Growth and Development 75
Fig. 9.3 Promoting peace and harmony
they did work to love each member and would unhesitatingly provide assistance to
each one as needed.
Another theme in the Social/Personal level that was frequently mentioned had
to do with decreased attachment to material possessions. A desire to down-size and
to have a smaller ecological foot was one of the things that drew many residents to
senior cohousing. People mentioned the wisdom of sharing equipment such as lawn
mowers, washers and dryers, and spoke with pride about their communal gardens,
recycling efforts and energy efficient buildings. While interest in such activities
preceded residence in a SCC for many, living in cohousing often enabled members
to more readily divest themselves of unneeded possession and more easily engage
in environmentally friendly practices.
The stories of those we interviewed suggests that for those who are open to
and interested in growth, life in senior cohousing provides many opportunities for
increased awareness about one’s own behavior, feelings and reactions and multiple
ongoing occasions to practice and develop new ways of being. Not all SCC members,
however, may be interested in personal growth or change. Community life, therefore,
may be more difficult and less rewarding for them as individuals and less beneficial
and productive for the development of the group. For this reason, residents we inter-
viewed advised that those interested in senior cohousing seriously consider their
adaptive capacity and openness to self-change prior to making a decision. Yet, for
older adults who are willing to engage in the challenge and adventure of continued
individual and interpersonal growth, senior cohousing may be a wonderful match.
9.3 Thoughts for the Future
In its current form, there are some aspects of senior cohousing life that make this
option less accessible to a wide range of older adults. One major issue is the current
homogeneity of the residents. Although residents come from many different areas of
the country and have a wide variety of religious beliefs, work histories, personalities
and backgrounds, the majority do tend to be white, well educated, and affluent. This
situation is partially related to the fact SCCs are designed, developed, managed and
operated by the older adults themselves and these individuals tend to be those who
possess the educational background and financial resources to undertake such as a
complex venture. In addition, senior cohousing is still a relatively new phenomenon
in the United States and only a limited number presently exist. The individuals who
have built and live in these communities are the pioneers of the senior cohousing
movement. They are experimenting with features and approaches and are laying the
groundwork for the possible creation of a more inclusive environments in the future.
Diversity. Of the residents that we spoke with during the visits, few were from
diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Several people commented on their desire for
greater diversity within the resident population, yet this was not something presently
achieved in most communities. Likewise, many of the SCCs we visited were in
neighborhoods that are fairly homogeneous. People in these cohousing communities
commented that their social networks manly consisted of individuals who looked
very much like them. A couple communities, however, were located in middle of
large urban areas where there was a great deal of racial, ethnic and socioeconomic
diversity.
There were a few notable areas where diversity was currently a part of senior
cohousing communities. One was religious and spiritual differences as people noted
that they were Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and atheists. For example, one of the
authors participated in a vesper service that was a regular part of the weekly calendar.
On this day, the reading was from a Christian passage but the service and discussion
also included Jewish perspectives. The integration of multiple religious perspectives
was viewed as adding richness and texture to the experience. Additionally, there
were same sex couples in a few of the SCCs we visited. Most telling, this issue was
never highlighted as something unusual. It was only discovered in passing – such
as in recounting a story or in giving a tour of where residents lived. In this way, the
inclusion of same sex community members seemed very open and accepting.
Costs. Developing senior cohousing is not cheap! There is the need to find and pur-
chase land, hire developers, contractors and architects, pay for all required building
materials, permits, etc., and furnish common areas. When these initial costs must be
covered by a small group of potential members, many find participation beyond their
reach. Several of the communities are located in upscale neighborhoods where land is
more expensive. Others possess higher-end materials and more extensive amenities
and common areas. These features drive up initial development expenses and the sale
prices of individual units and homes. Some groups, however, have found ways to
substantially restrict beginning costs. In one SCC, initial expenses were undertaken
9.3 Thoughts for the Future 77
by a senior housing developer who was an older adult himself and who wished to live
in the completed cohousing community. Some communities have received grants to
offset development costs while others have worked with non-profit agencies. The
founder of one community who had experience as a developer and a friend in real
estate oversaw most of the initial work completed in her community. And, a few SCCs
that we visited had purposefully chosen to construct smaller communities located
in less expensive areas of town. Such approaches made these SCCs more affordable
to middle class individuals. Still, buying into a typical senior cohousing community
may be beyond the means of many older adults with restricted incomes and limited
financial resources.
To address this reality, some of the SCCs have established ways to help lower
income older adults afford to live in their communities. One of the communities
visited had below market value homes that allowed them to receive a tax break from
the local government. These were colloquially called “affordables.” The difference in
home price between affordables and market value was significant. While individuals
who had fewer resources were given the opportunity to move in, there were also
some unintended consequences as described by Tammy “There is some resentment
on the part of some of the people in affordables …. As the people who live in market
rate for the most part are well-to-do people. This is [city] and to own one of our units
it’s close to a million dollars as opposed to the affordables that are $170,000 and will
never be more than that.”
Another way that other communities have made living there more affordable is
to have a few rental, in addition to the privately owned, properties and to allow
individuals to rent out part of their units. On a tour of one community, one of the
authors visited several homes that had a floor rented out. A single woman who was
living there moved from across the country to be close to her daughter. She was
over-the-moon happy that she had a one-bedroom apartment and was able to be part
of such a well-off environment that she would not be able afford any other way.
A second community had apartments in the common house that were offered at
a reduced price. These were comfortable, self-contained units that included a living
area, bedroom and small kitchenette. Jill discussed how she came to live in this
apartment and what it meant to her. She described how she was caring for her father,
and within a short time she lost him, and her only child also passed away. As a
result of the magnitude of these losses, she researched cohousing but discovered that
she didn’t have the resources to buy a property in a senior cohousing community.
“I went and visited them [other cohousing communities]. It was $220,000 to buy a
one-bedroom house. I don’t have that money, so I was automatically taken out of the
of senior cohousing category when I started looking at the pricing. Then I found this
place. It was like it came down from somewhere, I don’t know. I called, and I found
it was mixed income.”
Lastly, some non-profit agencies, such as Sarah’s Circle featured in this book, are
building senior rental properties that are intentionally designed to foster community.
With features such as large common areas, participation of residents on the board
of directors, resident managers who are community members and encouragement of
residents to actively engage in community life, these groups are on the cutting edge
of extending many of the benefits of senior cohousing to low income older adults.
9.4 Concluding Thoughts
As we end this book, both authors are left with a rich set of experiences as well as a
picture of the lives of senior cohousing residents. Before visiting the communities,
meeting the residents, and participating in activities, we had a theoretical understand-
ing of this type of living situation. That is, we assumed that it would be a positive
experience since we know that older adults both value being in their own homes and
thrive on social engagement. What we didn’t expect was the level of resilience and
vitality that we encountered! Although we have tried to capture that spirit in these
chapters, we want to leave with a few quintessential stories of our time with these
amazing individuals.
• One of the authors was supposed to interview Norma (age 68) as she had initially
agreed to participate in a conversation. The day of the visit, however, was perfect
weather—blue sky, low humidity. Upon arrival, a voice from the roof called out
“I’m up here.” You see, she was repairing her roof and wanted to make the most
of the day. Although she came down the ladder to apologize, it was clear that her
priority was to finish the job with her male friend who had come over to help out.
• In a focus group interview one of the participants, Dorothy, who was 90, com-
mented that, at times, she felt bad because she could no longer activity participate
on teams dedicated to the continuing upkeep of the cohousing community. The
other participants immediately protested and argued that she greatly contributed to
community life by being a role model for them of positive aging. Another member
of the group jokingly commented that whenever he went out in town with Dorothy,
he felt that she was his “arm-candy” since everyone in town knew and liked her
and always stopped them to say hello and talk for a while.
• Kim (Age 79) joined the group interview a bit late. She had been out in one of
the three organic gardens on the property and was finishing up with weeding and
tilling. She also had to tend to one of the chicken coops on the property. Although
she was pretty dirty (and a little smelly), she jumped into the discussion as soon
as she arrived.
• One of the authors had the opportunity to share a meal with a small group of
women in their 90’s who all had lost their husbands. The women in this “widows’
group” came together every Friday night in the common house kitchen to share
dinner with one another made by a cook they had hired. In the middle of a lively
conversation, one of the women who was speaking suddenly stopped and said, “I
can’t remember what I was going to say”. The others immediately started laughing
and claimed that forgetting something in mid-sentence happened to all of them.
After a brief pause someone started speaking and the conversation took off once
again.
9.4 Concluding Thoughts 79
• Stephanie (Age 89) was the host for one of the author’s visits. After the group
interview, she was going back to her house and was going to meet the author at
the vesper service. She never showed up…. At dinner afterwards, she stated that a
friend unexpectedly stopped by and she opened a bottle of wine instead of going
to the service. “I’ve been to church a lot in my life…. Seemed more fun to share
some wine today.”
Of course, after conducting all of our interviews we realize that living in a com-
munal setting does has some challenges and creates some tension. Overall, however,
both authors experienced a great deal more positive perceptions from the residents
than problematic outcomes.
We began this book with two purposes. One was to explore the experience of
living in a senior cohousing community in order to add to the gerontology literature.
As academics, we hope to have a broader perspective of later life living options to
share with our students who are the next generation of professionals who will practice
with older adults. The inclusion of senior cohousing expands the understanding of
later life choices and how activity and engagement benefit older individuals.
A second, and more personal goal, was to explore these communities as aging
adults ourselves. There are many reasons that a cohousing arrangement is an attractive
possibility. More than anything, we were both overwhelmed with the generosity and
openness that we experienced in our travels. While neither of us put down a down
payment at this point, both of us are seriously considering this type of living situation
as an option in our own futures.
References
Durrett, C. (2009). Senior cohousing handbook: A community approach to independent living (2nd
ed.). Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Tornstam, L. (2005). Gerotranscendence: A development theory of positive aging. New York:
Springer Publishing.
Tornstam, L. (2011). Maturing into gerotranscendence. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
43(2), 166–180.
Appendix A: Questions for Members
of Senior Cohousing Communities
1. What drew you to the idea of participating in an Senior Cohousing?

a. What were your fears/concerns, if any, about joining a SCC?
b. How did you deal with these issues?
2. What was your concept of community before you became involved in your
SCC?
a. Has this changed over time and, if so, how?
b. What were your expectations of community when you moved in?
3. How do you balance involvement in community with needs/desires for “alone
time?
a. Has this been challenging?
b. Did achieving this balance for you as an individual or for the community
take time/discussion to evolve?
4. Aging-in-place—what has been your own experience?
a. What has been the community’s experience?
b. How has this changed your view of yourself and your relationship to others?
5. Has the type of activities, your level of engagement in activities, or how you
engage in activities changed at all since you began living in your SCC? If so,
How? What difference has this made to your life?
6. Are the majority of your activities within the SCC or in the surrounding
community? How would you describe the relationship between your SCC and
the surrounding community?
7. What are the benefits, challenges, and surprises you’ve encountered living in
your SCC?
8. What are your desires for yourself and for this community for the future?
9. If you were giving advice to someone who was considering a move to an SCC
like yours—what would you say?
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2
82 Appendix A: Questions for Members of Senior Cohousing Communities
10. What did you learn about yourself and how have you grown, if any, through
your involvement in this intentional community?
11. Anything I didn’t ask that you feel I should have or anything you feel that I
should know.
*For those who were involved in planning and developing the SCC?
Did you participate in Henry Nielsen or the Charles Durrett/Jean Nillson study
groups to develop and design your community? If so, what was helpful/important
about these planning sessions?
a. If not, how did you develop and design your community?

b. What did you learn about yourself through this process?
c. Did your understanding of aging and your future change through this process
and, if so, how?

Senior Cohousing - Sherry Cummings, Nancy P. Kropf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senior Cohousing - Sherry Cummings, Nancy P. Kropf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senior Cohousing - Sherry Cummings, Nancy P. Kropf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN AGING

ISSN 2211-3231 ISSN 2211-324X (electronic)

We dedicate this book to those individuals as

EFF Elder Family Fellowship

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

1.1 Senior Cohousing

In response to desiring connection and engagement, senior cohousing communities

Fig. 1.1 Elder Family Fellowship

Fig. 1.2 Socializing in the common area

1.2 The Purpose of the Book

deeper understanding of the lived experience of the individual or group of individuals

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 9

lished intergenerational cohousing communities in Scandinavia. The community

2.2 Cohousing in the U.S.

Fig. 2.1 Blueprints for Silver Sage Senior cohousing

Fig. 2.2 Working toward a Senior cohousing mission statement

The second senior cohousing community to develop was ElderSpirit in rural,

Fig. 2.3 Blueprints come to life in common spaces

The Gerotranscendence Theory of Aging helped shape the framework we used to

2.3.1 Cosmic Level

• Increased feeling of oneness with the universe

2.3.2 Self Level

• Increased desire for solitude and meditation

an effort to support or critique the theory of gerotranscendence. Rather, it is an attempt

3.1 Cohousing Communities

Following is a brief description of each of the communities we visited and an overview

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 17

Fig. 3.1 Acequia Jardin

3.2 Alcequia Jardin

3.4 Elder Family Fellowship

Elderspirit is located in Abingdon, Virginia which is a small town in the southwest

3.6 Glacier Circle

3.7 Mountain View

3.8 Phoenix Commons

Phoenix Commons is located in a busy urban area of Oakland, California known

3.9 Sand River

3.10 Sarah’s Circle

Fig. 3.2 Sarah’s Circle

3.11 Silver Sage

3.12 Walnut Commons

Walnut Commons was originally designed as an inter-generational cohousing com-

3.13 Wolf Creek Lodge

Fig. 3.3 Wolf Creek Lodge

3.14 Governance and Management

In addition to the cohousing principles of neighborhood design and common facilities

Member participation forms the heart of cohousing communities. In most cases,

3.17 Member Recruitment and Vetting

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 27

4.1 Pushes: The Desire to Leave a Current Residence

Aging-in-place. As far as pushes, many individuals first came to the understanding

Fig. 4.1 Navigating steps can be difficult and dangerous

4.2 Pulls: The Move to a SCC

Fig. 4.2 Vision statement—Elder Family Fellowship/Union Acres

Fig. 4.3 Preparing for a shared meal

4.3 Why Senior Cohousing?

Thevillages.com. (November, 17, 2018). Retrieved from https://www.thevillages.com/.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 35

Fig. 5.1 A gardening team

5.1 Activity Within Senior Cohousing

Fig. 5.2 Happy hour and conversation